MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Waste Management, Radioactive

2021· other· en· W3141662965 on OpenAlex
B.M. Ikeda

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueKirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGraphite, nuclear technology, radiation studies
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadioactive wasteWaste managementHazardHealth hazardHuman healthEnvironmental scienceHigh-level wasteRadiation exposureEngineeringChemistryEnvironmental healthNuclear medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Radioactive waste consists of items and materials that are no longer useful and contain harmful amounts of radioactive material. The waste could emit α‐, β‐, γ‐radiation, or any combination of these types of radiation. If the concentration of radioactive elements is high enough, contact with the waste could be detrimental to human health and a danger to the environment. To help identify the hazard, radioactive waste is classified as high, intermediate, and low level waste, depending on the concentration of radioactive species and the half‐life of those species. High level radioactive waste poses the greatest hazard, while low level presents the smallest hazard. In this article, the types of wastes and examples of the waste are described, some of the important principles for managing the waste are noted, and the general methods for minimizing the hazard to human health and the environment while storing and disposing of the waste are explained.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.230 · 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