MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405483791 · doi:10.2172/2481307

DECOVALEX-2023: Task F1 Final Report

2024· report· fr· W4405483791 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Paul Mariner, Rosie Leone, Emily Stein, Jan Thiedau, Carlos Guevara Morel, Zhenze Li, Son Nguyen, Jungwoo Kim, Yongmin Kim, Jaewon Lee, Minjeong Kim, Jeffrey D. Hyman, Chieh-Chun Chang, Hao‐Ting Chang, Scott Briggs, Jan Březina, Nicholas I. Osuji

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languagefr
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics
Canadian institutionsNuclear Waste Management OrganizationCanadian Nuclear Safety Commission
FundersEidgenössisches NuklearsicherheitsinspektoratKorea Atomic Energy Research InstituteJapan Atomic Energy AgencyNuclear Waste Management OrganizationCanadian Nuclear Safety CommissionU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsTask (project management)Environmental scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DECOVALEX-2023 Task F is a comparison of models and methods for post-closure performance assessment (PA) of a deep geologic repository for radioactive waste. The general aims of Task F are to build confidence in the models, methods, and software used for PA and to stimulate additional research and development in PA methodologies. The task objectives are to motivate development of PA modelling skills and capabilities, to examine the influence of model choices on calculated repository performance, and to compare the uncertainties introduced by model choices to other sources of uncertainty. Task F involves no actual experiment or site. It is a PA modelling exercise that requires the conceptual development of hypothetical repository designs and geologic settings. Because three of the teams were interested in salt and the rest of the teams were interested in crystalline rock, Task F was split into two branches: Task F1 for crystalline rock and Task F2 for salt. This report is for Task F1, crystalline rock. Teams from seven countries (Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Korea, Sweden, Taiwan, and United States) participated in Task F1. The teams worked together to define the features, events, and processes of the reference case repository and established a set of performance measures. In addition, they defined a set of benchmark problems designed to test and compare modelling capabilities for fracture flow and transport at different scales. The repository design and benchmark problems are documented in a Task Specification that evolved over time as the group honed the specifications. The benchmark problems verified that each team can aptly model flow and transport in fractured media in 1-, 2-, and 3-dimensions. Two general approaches were used for the 3-dimensional benchmarks: discrete fracture network (DFN) and equivalent continuous porous medium (ECPM). DFN modelling involves explicit meshing of each fracture while ECPM modelling aims to capture the effective porosity and directional permeability of each cell in a space-filling mesh as affected by intersecting fractures. In some models, a combination of the two is used, i.e., DFN for large known fractures and ECPM for the rest of the domain. Transport is solved by using either the advection-dispersion equation or particle tracking. Although some variation is observed among model breakthrough curves in the benchmark problems, there is strong agreement in breakthrough behaviour up to at least the 75<sup>th</sup> percentile for all benchmarks. At the 90<sup>th</sup> percentile, breakthrough results show larger differences, suggesting several models retain substantially higher fractions of tracer in regions of slower moving water. In addition to the flow and transport benchmarks, several teams completed the source term benchmark, verifying capabilities for modelling radionuclide decay and ingrowth, waste package breach, instant release fractions, fuel matrix degradation rates, and radionuclide solubility limitations. The reference case is conceptualized as a generic spent fuel repository at a depth of 450 m in fractured crystalline rock. The repository has 50 parallel backfilled drifts, each with 50 deposition holes 6 m apart. Each deposition hole contains a 4-PWR waste package and bentonite buffer. The rock domain is 5 km in length, 2 km in width, and 1 km in depth. It has 6 deterministic fractured deformation zones and a multitude of stochastic fractures. Teams generally used the ECPM approach for the entire rock or a hybrid approach in which the deterministic fracture zones are modelled with a DFN and the rest of the rock is modelled by ECPM. Of the reference case problems specified, only the results of the initial reference case problem are compared in this report. The initial problem focuses on transport from the deposition holes to the surface, i.e., it neglects waste package performance. Tracers are released at all waste package locations at time zero and tracked for their releases to the near field and ground surface. The water fluxes calculated at the ground surface entry and exit regions of the domain are similar for all models except for two that have considerably lower fluxes. For tracer transport, large differences are observed among models in the magnitude of tracer transported. Much of the difference appears to be due to how the repository is implemented and hence the different degrees of repository simplification. Models that exclude the drifts, buffer, and backfill from the domain tend to show greater release of tracers and radionuclides from the repository. The initial study presented here indicates that major differences in modelling important processes within the repository (e.g., diffusion through buffer and backfill) can produce broadly different release and transport results, especially when those processes are excluded. Even for the models that included all specified features, events, and processes, the results show significant differences and demonstrate the importance of examining multiple modelling approaches in performance assessment. The differences in results observed in this study are expected to motivate teams to either increase complexity in future versions of the reference case models or to improve methods to account for the effects of simplified features and processes. Either way, future improvements in these models are expected to produce results that more closely agree.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0060.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0750.066

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational MathematicsFrench-language works237,207