トンネルシーリング性能試験における試験領域の応力,水理及び応力水理連成解析
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute has joined the international project, the Tunnel Sealing Experiment, to demonstrate the sealing performance of the full scale plugs in-situ, and to develop analytical method of the sealing performance of the plugs at the Underground Research Laboratory of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in Canada. We performed the analysis of the sealing performance of the full scale plugs considering the monitored data on sealing performance of the plugs. In these analyses, stress analysis, hydraulic analysis and coupled stress-hydraulic analysis were performed to explain distribution of the pore pressure in host rock and seepage through plugs.Stress analysis showed the stress condition in host around the test tunnel. Hydraulic and coupled stress-hydraulic analyses showed the change with time of pore pressure and seepages considering schedules of opening of the test tunnel, installation of the plugs and pressurizing of the chamber. Since opening the test tunnel caused changes of the pore pressure in host rock around the test tunnel, the coupled stress-hydraulic analysis explained distribution of the pore pressure in the host rock around the test tunnel and seepage through plugs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.030 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".