A systematic approach for surface exploration of sites – analysis of international exploration programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The site selection procedure for a high-level radioactive waste repository in Germany is based on the Repository Site Selection Act (StandAG, 2017), which comprises three phases. In phase 2 the Federal Company for Radioactive Waste Disposal (BGE) will conduct surface exploration. Based on the exploratory findings, the further developed preliminary safety analyses, the common requirements and criteria, and potential socioeconomic analyses will be applied feeding into proposed sites for underground exploration. Commissioned by the BGE, the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR) contributes to this procedure with the projects GeoMePS and ZuBeMErk, which collate and assess geoscientific and geophysical methods and programs for surface exploration. Their common goal is to develop recommendations for surface exploration of siting regions. For this purpose, the BGR has developed a systematic approach that includes (1) deducing exploration targets, (2) compilation of geoscientific and geophysical exploration methods in a database structure, and (3) analysis of case studies of national and international exploration programs for high-level radioactive waste disposal. Exploration targets are based on the common criteria and requirements as defined by the StandAG. The identified exploration targets (Kneuker et al., 2020) together with a large number of geoscientific and geophysical exploration methods were integrated and linked within the BGR database “GeM-DB”. All methods were evaluated according to their suitability and applicability for (a) the three defined host rocks (crystalline rock, claystone, rock salt) and (b) the previously defined exploration targets. In step (3) the BGR reviews national and international waste disposal programs exploring for crystalline rock, claystone, and rock salt. Here, the focus is on nondestructive and minimally invasive surface exploration techniques, such as geophysical airborne and ground-based methods or investigations in drill holes and on drill cores. The aims are to identify gaps in the method catalogue of the GeM-DB and to infer exploration directives for surface exploration during phase 2. An example is the analysis of the Swedish site selection process, especially the site investigation program. There, the site investigations are, e.g. the basis for the discipline-specific site descriptive models, which were applied for design and safety assessments (SKB, 2001). The Swedish site investigation program along with programs of other countries considering crystalline host rocks, such as Finland and Canada, show a common ground, which could be adapted for surface exploration of crystalline host rock regions in Germany. The assessment and evaluation of selected programs exploring for rock salt and claystone is currently in progress. The entire systematic approach of the projects GeoMePS and ZuBeMErk aims to develop recommendations for a nondestructive and minimally invasive surface exploration program of siting regions in Germany, regarding the lithological, structural, mechanical, and hydrogeological characterization of the different host rock formations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".