Development of a Fissile Materials Irradiation Capability for Advanced Fuel Testing at the MIT Research Reactor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A fissile materials irradiation capability has been developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Research Reactor (MITR) to support nuclear engineering studies in the area of advanced fuels. The focus of the expected research is to investigate the basic properties of advanced nuclear fuels using small aggregates of fissile material. As such, this program is intended to complement the ongoing fuel evaluation programs at test reactors. Candidates for study at the MITR include vibration-packed annular fuel for light water reactors and microparticle fuels for high-temperature gas reactors. Technical considerations that pertain to the design of the MITR facility are enumerated including those specified by 10 CFR 50 concerning the definition of a research reactor and those contained in a separate license amendment that was issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to MIT for these types of experiments. The former includes limits on the cross-sectional area of the experiment, the physical form of the irradiated material, and the removal of heat. The latter addresses experiment reactivity worth, thermal-hydraulic considerations, avoidance of fission product release, and experiment specific temperature scrams.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".