• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Radioactive Waste Management and Environmental Restoration >VALIDATION: THE ELUDING DEFINITION
【24h】

VALIDATION: THE ELUDING DEFINITION

机译：验证：排除定义

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The term "validation" is featured prominently in the literature on radioactive high-level waste (HLW) disposal. There exists, however, no unique definition of "validation" although it is generally understood to be related to model testing using experiments. This paper reviews the several definitions of "validation" and proposes their categorization into three main classes. The first class links validation to the goal of predicting the physical world as faithfully as possible. This view has been criticized as being unattainable and, in any event, unsuitable for setting goals for the safety analyses. Other definitions (Class 2) are strictly operational, and associate validation only to situations where the models can be tested against observational data. In this view, the decision to retain a predictive model for use in safety assessments does not belong to the remit of "validation". The third class of definitions focuses, instead, "validation" on the quality of the decision-making process, which shifts the debate from validation in the observational sense to "reasonable assurance" and "confidence building". In this third view, one cannot determine when a model or a suite of models are actually "validated". The lack of consensus on the meaning of "validation" is linked to its short history as a technical term. The first technical definition dates from the mid-fifties. The term was adopted thereafter in the computer field and elevated to its present status by the computer revolution of the seventies and early eighties. The term has made its appearance in some HLW safety standards only in the late eighties and it is virtually unmentioned in the low-level waste standards for disposal safety. The continued informal use of the term "validation" in the field of HLW disposal can become cause for endless speculations. The paper proposes either abandoning the use of this term or agreeing to a common definition.
机译：术语“验证”在放射性高放废物（HLW）处置的文献中具有突出的特征。然而，尽管通常认为“验证”与使用实验进行的模型测试有关，但没有唯一的定义。本文回顾了“验证”的几种定义，并提出将其分为三大类。第一类将验证与尽可能忠实地预测物理世界的目标联系在一起。这种观点被批评为无法实现，并且无论如何都不适合为安全性分析设定目标。其他定义（第2类）是严格可操作的，并且仅将验证与可以针对观察数据进行测试的模型相关联。在这种情况下，保留用于安全评估的预测模型的决定不属于“验证”责任范围。相反，第三类定义将“验证”放在决策过程的质量上，这将辩论从观察意义上的验证转移到“合理保证”和“建立信任”上。在第三种观点中，无法确定何时“验证”一个模型或一组模型。对于“验证”的含义缺乏共识，与它作为技术术语的短历史有关。第一个技术定义可追溯到五十年代中期。该术语此后在计算机领域被采用，并在70年代和80年代初的计算机革命中提升到现在的状态。该术语仅在80年代后期才出现在某些HLW安全标准中，并且在用于处置安全的低水平废物标准中几乎未提及。在高放废物处置领域继续非正式使用“确认”一词可能会引起无休止的猜测。本文提出要么放弃使用该术语，要么同意一个共同的定义。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号