MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1830316480 · doi:10.1109/fusion.1993.518285

Tritium Purification System for TFTR

2002· article· en· W1830316480 on OpenAlexaffabout
J.R. Robins, K.B. Woodall, Gordon Woo, D.G. Bellamy, S.K. Sood, C. Fong, D.T. Lee, Muneo Tanaka, Krishna Kalyanam, Michael D. Hare, A. Busigin, F. Adamek, O.K. Kveton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsCanadian Fuels AssociationHydro One (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTritiumScheduleTrack (disk drive)Nuclear engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringComputer scienceSystems engineeringNuclear physicsMechanical engineeringPhysicsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Tritium Purification System (TPS) for the TFTR at Princeton has been designed and built by Ontario Hydro/CFFTP on a fast-track schedule of about 15 months. This paper describes the design of the system, the technical challenges, and the innovative solutions required to meet the schedule, space and inventory constraints.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.006

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParticle accelerators and beam dynamicsFrench-language works237,207