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

U. S. Fusion Energy Future

2001· article· en· W1594156997 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

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
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