Measurements of Low-Enriched Uranium Holdup.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent effort determined uranium holdup at a large fuel fabrication facility abroad where low enriched ({approx} 3%) uranium (LEU) oxide feeds the pellet manufacturing process. Measurements taken with both high- and low-resolution gamma-ray spectrometry systems include extensive data for the ventilation and vacuum systems. Equipment dimensions and the corresponding holdup deposit masses are large for LEU. Because deposits are infinitely thick to the 186 keV gamma ray in many locations in an LEU environment, measurements of both the 186 and 1001 keV gamma-rays were required, and self-attenuation was significant at 1001 keV in many cases. These wide-dynamic-range measruements used short count times, portable scintillator detectors, and portable MCAs. Because equipment is elevated above floor levels, most measurements were made with detectors mounted on extended telescoping poles. One of the main goals of this effort was to demonstrate and validate methods for measurement and quantitative analysis of LEU holdup using low-resolution detectors and the Generalized Geometry Holdup (GGH) techniques. The current GGH approach is applied elsewhere for holdup measurements of plutonium and high-enriched uranium. The recent experience is directly applicable to holdup measruements at LEU facilities such as the Paducah and Portmouth gaseous diffusion enrichment plants and elsewhere, including LEU sites where D and D is active. This report discusses the measurement methodology, calibration of the measurement equipment, measurement control, analysis of the data, and the global and local assay results including random and systematic uncertainties. It includes field-validation exercises (multiple calibrated systems that perform measruements on the same extended equipment) as well as quantitative validation results obtained on reference materials assembled to emulate the deposits in an extended vacuum line that was also measured by these techniques. The paper examines the differences in assay results between the low-resolution system using the GGH method and the high-resolution system utilizing the commercially available ISOCS analysis method.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".