MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409530314 · doi:10.5006/c2005-05596

Condition Monitoring of Radioactive Waste Packages: Experience with the 4 Metre Box

2005· article· en· W4409530314 on OpenAlexaff
P.M. Wood, N.R. Smart, Carol A. Powell

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsNickel Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadioactive wasteWaste managementMetreEnvironmental scienceHigh-level wasteEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the United Kingdom, most intermediate level radioactive waste is being packaged in grade 316L stainless steel containers of various sizes. There is a need to ensure that the containers maintain their integrity during storage for a period that may extend for several decades. It is therefore important to have methods available for monitoring the condition of such packages so that at the end of the storage period the containers are in a form which is suitable for safe storage, transport, handling and potential disposal. A prototype container, the 4 Metre Box, which is fabricated in grade 304L stainless steel, has been used to gain experience in applying condition monitoring and corrosion monitoring techniques. The programme involved two main themes: characterising the environmental conditions (air temperature, surface temperature, relative humidity, time of wetness, surface chloride) and monitoring any changes in the condition of the box (surface strain, visual inspection, potential of reinforcement in concrete liner, dye penetrant). Atmospheric corrosion probes and corrosion coupons were also employed. This paper presents the results acquired during a five-year monitoring period and demonstrates the importance of environmental conditions, surface treatment and surface cleanliness in ensuring good corrosion resistance of stainless steel radioactive waste containers during storage.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.227
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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207