IMPROVED CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF LILW REPOSITORY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the forthcoming need for the construction of a repository for low and intermediate radioactive level waste in the Republic of Croatia, this paper proposes a repository design which is, from a geotechnical point of view, simple, practical and safe, and significantly improved considering current conceptual designs. Existing low and intermediate radioactive level waste repositories are mostly vault-type, near-surface constructions with some kind of covering (top) system of protective layers. However, most of these repositories do not have a bottom protective system, apart from concrete flooring (base). The reasons for such designs include the presumed longevity of the waste packages (containers), which are mostly reinforced concrete and/or steel containers. Considering that the concrete is a material which will, under certain conditions, deteriorate (e.g. dissolution of the cement matrix), and so potentially release radionuclides to the environment, it is essential to design the repository in such a manner that all forms of early release of radionuclides are prevented. The improved conceptual design of low and intermediate radioactive level waste repository presented in this paper is intended to provide an improved containment of radionuclides from waste and ensure the long term safety of the repository. This paper is the first in a series which will cover the basic design of the repository, systems of protective layers and preliminary slope stability analyses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".