MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1582052495

THE STATUS AND PROSPECT OF DUPIC FUEL TECHNOLOGY

2006· article· en· W1582052495 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Engineering and Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear engineeringFuel cycleSpent nuclear fuelSpent fuel poolWaste managementFuel element failureDepleted uraniumEngineeringNuclear fuelUraniumEnvironmental scienceNuclear physicsPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 1991, Korea, Canada and United States have performed the direct use of spent pressurized water reactor (PWR) fuel in the Canada deuterium uranium (CANDU) reactors (DUPIC) fuel development project. Unlike the Tandem fuel cycle, which requires a wet reprocessing, the DUPIC fuel technology can directly refabricate CANDU fuels from the PWR spent fuel and, therefore, is recognized as a highly proliferation-resistant fuel cycle technology, which can be adopted even in non-proliferation treaty countries. The Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) has fabricated DUPIC fuel elements in a laboratory- scale remote fuel fabrication facility. KAERI has demonstrated the fuel performance in the research reactor, and has confirmed the operational feasibility and safety of a CANDU reactor loaded with the DUPIC fuel using conventional design and analysis tools, which will be the foundation of the future practical and commercial uses of DUPIC fuel.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.158
Teacher spread0.156 · 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