Workshop: Best-practice for laboratory testing low-permeable materials
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The testing of low-permeable materials is challenging. Yet, for the disposal of radioactive waste, it is essential, too. This workshop is aimed at gathering ambitious scientists to discuss and to collaborate on their experiences in the laboratory testing of low-permeable materials. The focus here is on the methods: What method is best for what kind of low-permeable host rock (salt/clay) and for what kind of technical barrier material (bentonite/crushed salt)? How can measurement errors be correctly determined? What are the crucial “bottlenecks” in the device setups? How can high porous but low permeable samples best be pre-saturated? How can coupled flow and cumbersome gas traps in the tests be dealt with? What is the best-practice analysis of permeability from pressure decay recordings? Is there a hope of defining a standardized procedure for low-permeability testing? These points will be reflected in the light of radioactive waste disposal and in the need to find a best-practice solution when it comes to eventual evaluation and comparison of potential underground disposal sites.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it