A comparative review on groundwater hydrogeochemistry in countries preferring crystalline rock for deep geological disposal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares the hydrogeochemical environments of countries considering crystalline rock for deep geological disposal, with a focus on salinity differences and disposal safety. Crystalline rock is considered as a potential host in South Korea. The preference for crystalline rock is also shown in leading disposal countries, such as Finland, Sweden and Canada. However, hydrogeochemical contrasts exist, particularly in salinity. The deep groundwater in the Fennoscandian and Canadian Shields ranges from brackish to brine, forming layers with Na-Cl to Ca-Cl types, whereas most groundwater in South Korea’s crystalline rock is freshwater, with some brackish or saline waters near coastal areas due to seawater intrusion. The high salinity in the Fennoscandian and Canadian Shields is attributed to Paleozoic seawater evaporation and seawater freezing by Cenozoic glaciers, compounded by limited meteoric water infiltration and water-rock interactions. In South Korea, there is no evidence of ancient seawater transgressions of glaciation. Regarding disposal safety, freshwater environments cause less degradation in disposal components and limit radionuclide mobility. This suggests that a freshwater environment can also ensure the long-term safety of deep geological disposal, from a perspective different from that of a brine environment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".