Getting It Right? The Site Selection Process for Canada’s High-level Nuclear Waste
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter focuses on assessment and risk management of the site selection process for Canada’s permanent high-level waste management facility for used nuclear fuel. It also examines the risk management approach related to the development of the transportation routes that will be needed to carry used nuclear fuel to the permanent deep geological repository (DGR). There are several types of risks (technological, environmental, human health, political, security, and financial) and uncertainties (epistemic, semantic, and normative) that exist in this case. Our goal is to better understand how those different risks and uncertainties are assessed by different groups (in particular the lay public, stakeholders, and experts) and handled by the risk managers. The REACT (regulatory, economic, advisory, community-based, and technology) framework is used to assess risk management practices for siting a location for high-level nuclear waste. After a general introduction to the case, three descriptive sections provide the level of individuals’ affectedness, the types of risk management intervention tools, and the level of democratization in the case. A particular emphasis is on the public consultation process for communities interested in hosting the DGR.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".