DECOVALEX-2023 Task F Specification (Rev. 9)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report is the revised (Revision 9) Task F specification for DECOVALEX-2023.Task F is a comparison of the models and methods used in deep geologic repository performance assessment.The task proposes to develop a reference case for a mined repository in a fractured crystalline host rock (Task F1) and a reference case for a mined repository in a salt formation (Task F2).Teams may choose to participate in the comparison for either or both reference cases.For each reference case, a common set of conceptual models and parameters describing features, events, and processes that impact performance will be given, and teams will be responsible for determining how best to implement and couple the models.The comparison will be conducted in stages, beginning with a comparison of key outputs of individual process models, followed by a comparison of a single deterministic simulation of the full reference case, and moving on to uncertainty propagation and uncertainty and sensitivity analysis.This report provides background information, a summary of the proposed reference cases, and a staged plan for the analysis.This page is intentionally left blank.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".