MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405584120 · doi:10.1177/01466453241283931ap

Radiation protection strategies in high-grade underground uranium mines

2024· article· en· W4405584120 on OpenAlexaff
K.L. Toews, J. Takala

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the ICRP · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and Geomechanical Engineering
Canadian institutionsCameco (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUranium mineEnvironmental scienceUranium miningUraniumMining engineeringRadiation protectionRadiation exposureGeologyMedicineMaterials scienceNuclear medicineMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mining high-grade uranium ore in an underground environment presents a number of potential challenges and exposure sources that must be addressed and controlled. Specific sources include radon progeny, gamma, and long-lived radioactive dust (LLRD). Workplace conditions, including grade and proximity to ore, worker positioning, and shielding impact gamma exposure potential, while ground conditions and the presence of radon gas in water can create highly temporal and spatially variable radon progeny conditions. High-grade uranium ore grade also presents a strong source term for LLRD that must be controlled. Cameco has implemented numerous physical and administrative control strategies in an integrated fashion to address these hazards. These controls start at the design of the mine and extend into operational practices. The radiation protection program provides the overall framework that guides the various activities including training of workers and radiation protection staff, dosimetry and engineering monitoring programs, research into better characterisation of hazards, shielding design and administrative controls. Cameco has continued to optimise radiation protection strategies in high-grade underground uranium mining environments over the past two decades and has kept doses well below the national dose limits and implemented numerous ALARA initiatives to further lower doses where practical.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.218 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the ICRPSame topicGeotechnical and Geomechanical EngineeringFrench-language works237,207