MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W123835698

Reduction of bias in neutron multiplicity assay using a weighted point model

2004· paratext· en· W123835698 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) · 2004
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear Physics and Applications
Canadian institutionsDouglas College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodWeightingNeutronMultiplicity (mathematics)PhysicsNuclear dataMathematicsComputational physicsAlgorithmStatistical physicsNuclear physicsStatisticsMathematical analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate assay of most common plutonium samples was the development goal for the nondestructive assay technique of neutron multiplicity counting. Over the past 20 years the technique has been proven for relatively pure oxides and small metal items. Unfortunately, the technique results in large biases when assaying large metal items. Limiting assumptions, such as unifoh multiplication, in the point model used to derive the multiplicity equations causes these biases for large dense items. A weighted point model has been developed to overcome some of the limitations in the standard point model. Weighting factors are detemiined from Monte Carlo calculations using the MCNPX code. Monte Carlo calculations give the dependence of the weighting factors on sample mass and geometry, and simulated assays using Monte Carlo give the theoretical accuracy of the weighted-point-model assay. Measured multiplicity data evaluated with both the standard and weighted point models are compared to reference values to give the experimental accuracy of the assay. Initial results show significant promise for the weighted point model in reducing or eliminating biases in the neutron multiplicity assay of metal items. The negative biases observed in the assay of plutonium metal samples are caused by variations in the neutron multiplication for neutrons originating in various locations in the sample. The bias depends on the mass and shape of the sample and depends on the amount and energy distribution of the ({alpha},n) neutrons in the sample. When the standard point model is used, this variable-multiplication bias overestimates the multiplication and alpha values of the sample, and underestimates the plutonium mass. The weighted point model potentially can provide assay accuracy of {approx}2% (1 {sigma}) for cylindrical plutonium metal samples < 4 kg with {alpha} < 1 without knowing the exact shape of the samples, provided that the ({alpha},n) source is uniformly distributed throughout the sample and has an average neutron energy close to the O({alpha},n) average neutron energy. Better assay results can be obtained if there is some knowledge of the plutonium geometry, because weighting factor curves can be calculated for any specified geometry.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it