MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7048759500

Managing radioactive waste safely : initial geological unsuitability screening of West Cumbria

2010· other· en· W7048759500 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council) · 2010
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadioactive wasteInterimGovernment (linguistics)General partnershipWaste disposalLocal governmentGeological survey
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2001 the UK Government began the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely1(MRWS)
\nprogramme with the aim of identifying a long-term solution for the UK’s higher activity wastes
\nthat:
\n• achieved long-term protection of people and the environment
\n• did this in an open and transparent way that inspired public confidence
\n• was based on sound science, and
\n• ensured the effective use of public monies.
\nIn 2003 the independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM)2was
\nestablished to consider the available options and make recommendations to Government. In
\nOctober 2006, the Government accepted CoRWM’s recommendations that geological disposal,
\npreceded by safe and secure interim storage, was the best available approach. Government also
\naccepted that an approach based on voluntarism, and partnership with local communities, was
\nthe best way of siting a geological disposal facility (GDF).
\nGeological disposal involves placing radioactive waste within engineered, multi-barrier facilities
\ndeep inside a suitable rock formation where the facility and geology provide a barrier against the
\nescape of radioactivity. Internationally it is recognised as the preferred approach - it is being
\nadopted in many countries including Canada, Finland, France and Sweden - and is supported by
\na number of UK learned societies including the Royal Society, the Geological Society and the
\nRoyal Society of Chemistry.
\nFollowing further consultation, the White Paper ‘Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS):
\nA Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal’ was published in 2008; it sets out a staged
\napproach to siting a geological disposal facility. The process starts with local communities
\ninitially ‘expressing an interest’ in opening up discussions with Government. At each stage, the
\nprocess allows all those involved to take stock before deciding whether or not to move to the
\nnext stage at a particular site. Up until late in the process, when underground operations and
\nconstruction are about to begin, the community has a Right of Withdrawal - if it wished to
\nwithdraw then its involvement in the process would stop. Figure 1, below, shows the main stages
\nin the process.
\nThe Nuclear Decommissioning Agency (NDA) have since published an additional document
\n‘Geological Disposal: Steps towards implementation’3 which provides further information on
\nwhat will be required for the successful implementation of geological disposal.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesOpen science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0060.014
Research integrity0.0000.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4420.001

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.258 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207