MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378714292 · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16602

Radionuclide contamination in Canada: A scoping review

2023· review· en· W4378714292 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHeliyon · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersHealth CanadaCanadian Nuclear Safety CommissionEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaQueen's UniversityConcordia University
KeywordsRadionuclideContext (archaeology)Nuclear weaponEnvironmental scienceNuclear powerRadioactive contaminationContaminationRadioactive wasteEnvironmental protectionWaste managementGeographyEngineeringArchaeologyPolitical scienceEcologyNuclear physicsBiologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radionuclides were first discovered in the late 1800s, and artificial (anthropogenic) radionuclides in the 1930s. Since then, this group of substances has been increasingly incorporated into various peaceful and non-peaceful applications across Canada and the world, bringing with it both advanced technological and medical benefits, and public concern about the dangers from radiation exposure. As such, a breadth of research on, and monitoring of, radionuclides in the Canadian environment has been generated, the results of which span decades. However, a recent comprehensive review of these is not readily available. This study aims to fill this gap by synthesizing available literature from the last 30 years on the Canadian state and provenance of radionuclide contamination to better understand the context of overall sources and status of contamination. The findings indicate that while regional and temporal variations exist, on average, routine radionuclide exposure in Canada is generally attributed mainly to natural sources and fallout from historical nuclear weapons testing and nuclear accidents (including the Chernobyl and Fukushima power plant accidents) and to a smaller degree to emissions from nuclear facilities, including active and historical uranium mines and mills, nuclear research facilities, and nuclear power plants. Levels of anthropogenic radionuclides in the Canadian environment have declined since the initial cessation of nuclear weapons testing in the 1960s and are generally below guidelines protective of human health. On the national scale, present-day nuclear sector facilities do not appear to be a significant source of routine anthropogenic, nor technically-enhanced naturally occurring radionuclide exposure, though local scenarios may vary. These findings contribute context for evaluating the sustainable management of nuclear technologies, radioactive materials and waste in Canada and globally, in line with UN Sustainable Development Goal 12 and target 12.4: responsible management of chemicals and waste.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.256 · 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