MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1594156997 · doi:10.13182/fst01-a11963287

U. S. Fusion Energy Future

2001· article· en· W1594156997 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. Schmidt, S. Larson, Maria Pueyo, P. H. Rutherford, D. L. Jassby

Bibliographic record

VenueFusion Technology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNuclear Issues and Defense
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsSoftware deploymentFusion powerResource (disambiguation)Production (economics)ScheduleEnvironmental scienceRadioactive wasteNuclear engineeringComputer scienceNuclear physicsEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fusion implementation scenarios for the United States have been developed. The dependence of these scenarios on both the fusion development and implementation paths has been assessed. A range of implementation paths has been studied. The deployment of CANDU fission power plants in Canada and the deployment of fission power plants in France have been assessed as possible models for U.S. fusion deployment. The waste production and resource (including tritium) needs have been assessed. The conclusion that can be drawn from these studies is that it is challenging to make a significant impact on energy production during this century. However, the rapid deployment of fission power plants in Canada and France supports fusion implementation scenarios for the U.S. with significant power production during this century. If we can meet the schedule requirements then the resource needs and waste production are found to be manageable problems.

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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.005

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFusion TechnologySame topicNuclear Issues and DefenseFrench-language works237,207