Upgrade of Control and Protection System of the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ignalina nuclear power plant (NPP) Units 1 and 2 are Soviet-designed, RBMK (Reaktor Bolshoi Moschnosti Kipyashchiy), channelized, large power-type reactors. The original-design electrical capacity for each unit was 1500 MW. Unit 1 began operating in 1983, and Unit 2 was started up in 1987. In 1994, the government of Lithuania agreed to accept grant support for the Ignalina NPP Safety Improvement Program with funding supplied by the Nuclear Safety Account of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). As conditions for receiving this funding, the Ignalina NPP agreed to prepare a comprehensive safety analysis report that would undergo independent peer review after it was issued. The EBRD Safety Panel oversaw preparation and review of the report. In 1996, the safety analysis report for Unit 1 was completed and delivered to the EBRD. Part of the analyses covered anticipated transients without scram (ATWS). The analysis showed that some ATWS scenarios could lead to unacceptable consequences in <1 min. The EBRD Safety Panel recommended to the government of Lithuania that the Ignalina NPP develop and implement a program of compensatory measures for the control and protection system before the unit would be allowed to return to operation following its 1998 maintenance outage. A compensatory control and protection system that would mitigate the unacceptable consequences was designed, procured, manufactured, tested, and installed. The project was funded by U.S. Department of Energy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".