MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2268081733

Growth and Expansion of the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project and the Newly Organized International Reactor Physics Experiment Evaluation Project

2007· paratext· en· W2268081733 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. Blair Briggs, Lori Scott, Y. Rugama, Enrico Satori

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas) · 2007
Typeparatext
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesU.S. Department of Energy
Mots-clésCriticalityBenchmark (surveying)Nuclear engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringSystems engineeringNuclear physicsPhysicsGeology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Since ICNC 2003, the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP) has continued to expand its efforts and broaden its scope. Criticality-alarm / shielding type benchmarks and fundamental physics measurements that are relevant to criticality safety applications are not only included in the scope of the project, but benchmark data are also included in the latest version of the handbook. A considerable number of improvements have been made to the searchable database, DICE and the criticality-alarm / shielding benchmarks and fundamental physics measurements have been included in the database. There were 12 countries participating on the ICSBEP in 2003. That number has increased to 18 with recent contributions of data and/or resources from Brazil, Czech Republic, Poland, India, Canada, and China. South Africa, Germany, Argentina, and Australia have been invited to participate. Since ICNC 2003, the contents of the “International Handbook of Evaluated Criticality Safety Benchmark Experiments” have increased from 350 evaluations (28,000 pages) containing benchmark specifications for 3070 critical or subcritical configurations to 442 evaluations (over 38,000 pages) containing benchmark specifications for 3957 critical or subcritical configurations, 23 criticality-alarm-placement / shielding configurations with multiple dose points for each, and 20 configurations that have been categorized as fundamental physics measurements that are relevant to criticality safety applications in the 2006 Edition of the ICSBEP Handbook. Approximately 30 new evaluations and 250 additional configurations are expected to be added to the 2007 Edition of the Handbook. Since ICNC 2003, a reactor physics counterpart to the ICSBEP, The International Reactor Physics Experiment Evaluation Project (IRPhEP) was initiated. Beginning in 1999, the IRPhEP was conducted as a pilot activity by the by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Nuclear Science Committee (NSC). The project was endorsed as an official activity of the NSC in June of 2003. The IRPhEP is patterned after its predecessor, the ICSBEP, but focuses on other integral measurements such as buckling, spectral characteristics, reactivity effects, reactivity coefficients, kinetics measurements, reaction-rate and power distributions, nuclide compositions and other miscellaneous types of measurements in addition to the critical configuration. The two projects are closely coordinated to avoid duplication of effort and to leverage limited resources to achieve a common goal. The purpose of the IRPhEP is to provide an extensively peer reviewed set of reactor physics related integral benchmark data that can be used by reactor designers and safety analysts to validate the analytical tools used to design next generation reactors and establish the safety basis for operation of these reactors. While coordination and administration of the IRPhEP takes place at an international level, each participating country is responsible for the administration, technical direction, and priorities of the project within their respective countries. The work of the IRPhEP is documented in an OECD NEA Handbook entitled, “International Handbook of Evaluated Reactor Physics Benchmark Experiments.” The first edition of this Handbook, the 2006 Edition spans over 2000 pages and contains data from 16 different experimental series that were

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,168
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,014
Tête enseignante GPT0,205
Écart entre enseignants0,191 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUniversity of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas)Même sujetNuclear reactor physics and engineeringTravaux en français237 207