Radiation Shielding Analysis for Direct Use of Spent Pressurized Water Reactor Fuel in CANDU Reactors (DUPIC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a part of the compatibility analysis of DUPIC fuel in Canada deuterium uranium (CANDU) reactors, the radiation physics calculations have been performed for the CANDU primary shielding system, which was originally designed for natural uranium core. At first, the conventional CANDU primary shield analysis method was validated using the Monte Carlo code MCNP-4B in order to assess the current analysis code system and the cross-section data. The computational benchmark calculation was performed for the CANDU end shield system, which has shown that the conventional method produces results consistent with the reference calculations as far as the total dose rate and total heat deposition rate are concerned. Second, the primary shield system analysis was performed for the DUPIC fuel core based on the power distribution obtained from the time-average core model, and the results have shown that the dose rates and heat deposition rates through the primary shield of the DUPIC fuel core are not much different from those of the natural uranium core because the power levels on the core periphery are similar for both cores. This study has shown that the current primary shield system is adaptable for the DUPIC fuel CANDU core without design modification.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".