Progress of the DUPIC Fuel Compatibility Analysis - I: Reactor Physics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 1992, the direct use of spent pressurized water reactor fuel in Canada deuterium uranium (CANDU) reactors (DUPIC) has been studied as an alternative to the once-through fuel cycle. The DUPIC fuel cycle study is focused on the analysis of technical feasibility, the fabrication of DUPIC fuels for irradiation tests, and the demonstration of the DUPIC fuel performance. The feasibility analysis was conducted for the compatibility of the DUPIC fuel with existing CANDU-6 reactors from the viewpoints of reactor physics, reactor safety, fuel cycle economics, etc. This study has summarized the intermediate results of the DUPIC fuel compatibility analysis, which includes the CANDU reactor physics design requirements, DUPIC fuel core physics design method, performance of the DUPIC fuel core, and the regional overpower trip setpoint. The physics analysis showed the CANDU-6 reactor can accommodate the DUPIC fuel without deteriorating the physics design requirements by adjusting the fuel management scheme if the fissile content of the DUPIC fuel is tightly controlled.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".