MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037191982 · doi:10.1002/maco.202011763

An update on the copper corrosion program for the long‐term management of used nuclear fuel in Canada

2020· article· en· W3037191982 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Peter Keech, Mehran Behazin, W. Jeffrey Binns, Scott Briggs

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials and Corrosion · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsNuclear Waste Management Organization
FundersUniversity of TorontoYork UniversityNationale Genossenschaft für die Lagerung radioaktiver AbfälleNuclear Waste Management Organization
KeywordsCorrosionSpent nuclear fuelAllowance (engineering)Radioactive wasteCopperEnvironmental scienceTerm (time)Mining engineeringWaste managementGeologyMetallurgyEngineeringMaterials scienceOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In 2012, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization developed a comprehensive proof test plan (PTP) to evaluate the feasibility and safety of their copper‐coated used fuel container and their novel bentonite buffer box emplacement concept to be employed in its proposed deep geological repository for the long‐term management of used nuclear fuel. Research within the PTP includes several programs to evaluate the possible extent of damage that may be caused by various copper corrosion mechanisms: oxic‐, radiolytic‐, anoxic‐, and sulfide‐induced, with particular attention being paid to the possibility of localization of any of these processes. Programs remain on track to support and refine a maximum copper corrosion allowance of <1.27 mm over a one million year emplacement in a deep geological repository.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials and CorrosionSame topicNuclear Materials and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207