MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1602556105 · doi:10.1002/0471028959.sof320

Software Engineering Standards in the Nuclear Power Industry—Safety‐Related Applications

2002· other· en· W1602556105 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEncyclopedia of Software Engineering · 2002
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Reliability and Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsOntario Power Generation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear powerConsistency (knowledge bases)Software deploymentNuclear industrySafety standardsEngineeringBusinessComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)International tradeEngineering managementElectrical engineeringSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Nuclear power is very much an international industry. U.S., Canadian, and European vendors are actively involved in the deployment of modern nuclear reactors (including I&C systems) in Asia. I&C systems are routinely delivered across national boundaries; for instance U.S. designed systems have been implemented in Czech Republic, Ukraine, and South Korea; German designed systems have been implemented throughout Europe and proposed for the United States; Canadian designed systems have been installed in Canada and South Korea. The Canadian software engineering technology for safety critical software has been considered for adoption in the development of new I&C safety‐related systems outside of Canada. Japanese I&C systems have proven reliable and should attract wider interest. The global nature of nuclear power points to the strong need for consistency in international sets of nuclear and other standards in addition to consistent approaches to licensing such systems. The application of standards in the nuclear industry is a nontrivial exercise. Many standards organizations worldwide develop standards that affect nuclear I&C systems. Developing a system in one country to one set of standards is no longer sufficient. As such systems cross national boundaries, they need to demonstrate conformance to more than one set of standards and must be licensable in the country of implementation. There is a broad consensus on general principles and approaches in the standards, and national licensing approaches are converging. However, there remain a number of specific issues on which consensus is still outstanding. Examples are the benefits to be gained from the use of formal methods, how to quantify the benefits from applying diversity principles to software, methods for measuring and achieving software reliability and requirements, and methods for the validation of transformation tools and of their output. As technology advances, issues of concern today may be solved, or new issues may arise. Nuclear industry standards and regulatory criteria will have to be periodically updated to keep pace with new international standards, increasing regulatory rigor with respect to software, fast‐paced computer technology advances, and experience gained, both within and outside the nuclear industry, for safety‐related computer‐based I&C systems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.216 · 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