MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388463150 · doi:10.32390/ksmer.2023.60.5.414

A Study on Previous Cases of Seismic Reflection Surveys for Deep Geological Disposal Site Investigations in Crystalline and Sedimentary Host Rocks

2023· article· en· W4388463150 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hyoung-Seok Kwon, Manho Han, Yoon-Sup Moon, Nam-Young Kong, Seokhoon Oh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Korean Society of Mineral and Energy Resources Engineers · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySedimentary rockReflection (computer programming)GeochemistryGeological surveySeismologyMining engineeringPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crystalline and sedimentary rocks are the preferred host rocks in deep repositories for spent nuclear fuels.This study examined the Swiss case of sedimentary rocks and Swedish and Canadian cases of crystalline rocks.In Switzerland, a reflection survey was used to identify the candidate host rock for the disposal site as the Opalinus clay formation and to create images of the boundaries of the Mesozoic sedimentary layers, including the Opalinus clay formation.A 3D reflection survey was conducted to determine the distribution and small-scale faulting of the Opalinus clay formation.Sweden conducted reflection surveys at the Forsmark site to obtain geological information on the deformation lenses within the site and to characterize the geology of the three deformation zones near the site.Canada conducted a reflection survey at the Ignace site to obtain information on its geological structure, including the location and dipping angles of the reflectors distributed in the vicinity of the site.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Korean Society of Mineral and Energy Resources EngineersSame topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207