MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405483748 · doi:10.2172/2481306

DECOVALEX-2023: Task E Final Report

2024· report· en· W4405483748 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kristopher Kuhlman, Hua Shao, Jeroen Bartol, Oliver Czaikowski, Kyra Jantschik, Michelle Bourret, Eric Guiltinan, Philip H. Stauffer, Jonny Rutqvist, Hafssa Tounsi, Simon Norris, Steven Benbow, Claire Watson, Richard Jayne

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Nuclear Safety CommissionNational Nuclear Security AdministrationEidgenössisches NuklearsicherheitsinspektoratKorea Atomic Energy Research InstituteJapan Atomic Energy AgencyNuclear Waste Management OrganizationSandia National LaboratoriesU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsTask (project management)Computer scienceEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the Task E final report for DECOVALEX-2023. Task E is focused on understanding thermal, two-phase hydrological, and mechanical (TH2M) processes, especially related to predicting brine migration in the excavation damaged zone around a heated excavation in salt. Salt is attractive as a disposal medium for radioactive waste because it is self-healing and is essentially impermeable and essentially non-porous in the far field (away from excavations). Investigation of the short-term (days to years) near-field (centimeters to tens of meters) behavior of salt is important for radioactive waste disposal because this early period strongly controls the amount of brine in a salt repository. Brine leads to corrosion of waste forms and waste packages, and possible dissolution of radionuclides with brine transport being a potential transport vector to the accessible environment. The main test case used in Task E is the ongoing Brine Availability Test in Salt (BATS) heater test located underground at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico, USA. The Task was divided into a series of Steps. Step 0 was an introduction to processes in salt, that included matching historical unheated brine inflow data from boreholes at WIPP and matching temperature observations during BATS heater test 1a. Step 1 included validation of models against a thermo-poroelastic analytical solution relevant to heated boreholes in salt, and two-phase flow around an excavation in salt. Step 2 required all the individual components covered in steps 0 and 1 to come together to match observed brine inflow behavior during the BATS 1a heater test. There were a range of approaches from the teams, from mechanistic to prescriptive. Given the uncertainties in the problem, some teams used one- or two-dimensional models of the processes, while other teams included more geometrical complexity in three-dimensional models. The key learning points from Task E have been: • Heat conduction through salt typically requires non-linear thermal conductivity (as a function of temperature), but most models do a good job matching observations, given appropriate adjustments to the applied power and some thermocouple locations. • Thermal pressurization requires coupled thermal-hydrological-mechanical (THM) responses that consider the thermal expansion of the fluid and solid phases. • Initialization of two-phase flow models around a borehole or excavation in salt are more realistically represented as “wetting up”, rather than “drying down” (i.e., the initial state after excavation is mostly dry, rather than mostly wet). • The BATS 1a heater test includes a significant release of brine after the end of heating, which requires a large increase in permeability to recreate. Task E has been a great learning experience for all the teams involved, and feedback from the modeling teams has led to changes in the design of follow-on BATS experiments, which are now ongoing underground at WIPP. There was a balance throughout the task between freedom to model phenomena how each team saw fit, and prescriptiveness in problem design to bring the modeling teams closer together to allow attribution of smaller differences between models to different modeling choices. The modeling approaches seem to go through two phases: an early phase of discovery or testing, and a later phase of refinement and improvement. In future modeling efforts, different field data could be used (e.g., BATS 2) and more time should be included in the processes for teams to make multiple model refinement or even significant changes to their conceptual model or setup, based on lessons learned from the modeling exercise.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207