MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2007138350 · doi:10.1115/icone14-89859

A Review of Some Degradation Mechanisms in CANDU Steam Generator Tubing

2006· review· en· W2007138350 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gabriel Idowu Ogundele, M. Clark, Guylaine Goszczynski, A. C. Lloyd, Sandra Pagan, Ken Sedman, P King

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 1: Plant Operations, Maintenance and Life Cycle; Component Reliability and Materials Issues; Codes, Standards, Licensing and Regulatory Issues; Fuel Cycle and High Level Waste Management · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicHydrogen embrittlement and corrosion behaviors in metals
Canadian institutionsBruce Power (Canada)Ontario Power GenerationKinectrics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncoloyInconelMetallurgyStress corrosion crackingMonelIntergranular corrosionMaterials scienceFrettingCorrosionBoiler (water heating)Nuclear engineeringWaste managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first CANDU (CANadian Deuterium Uranium) pressurized heavy water reactor (PHWR) went into operation in July 1971. Today, there are several units in operation at the Pickering, Bruce, and Darlington sites in Ontario, Canada. The steam generator tubing materials were manufactured from Monel 400, Inconel 600, and Incoloy 800 for the Pickering, Bruce, and Darlington respectively and are subjected to different operating conditions. This paper presents a review of some of the various types of degradation mechanisms that have been observed on these tubing materials over the operating period of the respective plants. The results presented are based on the metallurgical examination of removed tubes. The mechanisms that have been observed include pitting, stress corrosion cracking, intergranular attack, fretting, and erosion corrosion. The nature of the flaws and causative factors (if known) are discussed.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 1: Plant Operations, Maintenance and Life Cycle; Component Reliability and Materials Issues; Codes, Standards, Licensing and Regulatory Issues; Fuel Cycle and High Level Waste Management→Same topicHydrogen embrittlement and corrosion behaviors in metals→French-language works237,207→