MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1512342440

REVIEW OF HEAVY WATER PRODUCTION PROCESSES.

2018· report· en· W1512342440 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
H.K. Rae

Bibliographic record

VenueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) · 2018
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicChemical Synthesis and Characterization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduction (economics)Environmental scienceEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid growth of Canadian heavy-water-power-reaator capacity has renewed interest in D{sub 2}O production. The only economic source for large quantities of D{sub 2}O today is natural water. Attractive processes include hydrogen distillation (where pure hydrogen streams are available for stripping) and several chemical exchange reactions. Chemical exchange of deuterium and hydrogen between two compounds leads to the preferential accumulation of the deuterium in one. Choosing a gas and a liquid, efficient counter-current multistage operation is possible giving large enrichment factors in a single tower. To obtain reflux the deuterium transfer must be reversed outside the tower using chemical conversion or another exchange tower operating at a higher temperature. Chemical exchange between water and hydrogen sulphide has been used at the USAEC Savannah River plant for 16 years and is the process chosen for the three large heavy water plants being built in Canada by Deuterium of Canada Limited (Glace Bay, N.S.), Canadian General Electric Company Limited (Port Hawksbury, N.S.), and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (Kincardine, Ont.). Ammonia-hydrogen exchange and amine-hydrogen exchange are potential competitive processes. (auth)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.024

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information)Same topicChemical Synthesis and CharacterizationFrench-language works237,207