Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Korea, MR(Maintenance Rule) programs development for all PWR were completed. However, in case of PHWR (CANDU type, Wolsong Unit 1&2,3,4), the study of MR program was delayed, since the design concepts and operating experiences are different from those of PWR. Additionally, in Canada that designed the CANDU reactor originally, the MR program has not been tried even though the similar programs such as the Reliability Program and Maintenance Program exist. In 2007， KEPRI started a project for developing similar MR program for the domestic PHWR considering the unique design characteristics and operating experience of Wolsong Unit 1,2,3 & 4.This paper describes the characteristics of CANDU design experienced during the function analysis in scoping process that is the first step in MR program development, and the results of scoping process, ^ince the design features of CANDU is different from those of PWR (for example, using D20 as a coolant and moderator, the pressure tube and Calandria, and the fuel changing machine, etc.), the applicability of NUMARC 93-01 Criteria to CANDU had to be investigated and justified in this paper. Next step, the risk importance determination process for functions in scope will be described. The risk importance was determined by mapping important PSA basic event to function in scope and Delphi method. For Delphi evaluation, Delphi evaluation item for CANDU need to be developed because the design and normal operation functions are different from PWR. The final review for risk importance determination was performed by Expert Panel organized by the plant expert engineers of Wolsong Unit 3&4. In this paper, the discussion results are also described, so it will be a great help to understand the functional characteristics ana identity the important function of CANDU plant
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.018 |
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".