地層処分低レベル放射性廃棄物の安全評価解析と物量変動の処分場への影響に関する検討・評価(共同研究)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2009, NUMO and JAEA set up a technical commission to investigate the reasonable TRU waste disposal following a cooperation agreement between these two organizations. In this report, the calculation result of radionuclide transport for a TRU waste geological disposal system was described, by using the TIGER code and the GoldSim code at identical terms. Comparing the calculation result, a big difference was not seen. Therefore, the reliability of both codes was able to be confirmed. Moreover, the influence on the disposal site design (Disposal capacity: 19,000 m$^{3}$) was examined when 10\% of the amount of TRU waste increased. As a result, it was confirmed that the influence of the site design was very little based on the concept of the Second Progress Report on Research and Development for TRU Waste Disposal in Japan.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.042 |
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".