Brief Analysis of the Simulative Plutonium Aerosol Source-Term in the Circumstance of High Explosive Detonation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The plutonium material in weapons grade nuclear device would be aerosolized and dispersed into the atmosphere if the device was involved in a high explosive detonation. It is significant to investigate the environmental and public hazard caused by the possible dispersion of plutonium. The original work is to determine the source terms of plutonium aerosol in certain nuclear accident scenario. In such scenario the inhalation of plutonium aerosols is the main human hazard source. Only the plutonium aerosols with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 μm are respirable and may ultimately lead to fatal human death. The field detonation test with plutonium by U.S. government is reviewed and the results indicate that for expected high explosive detonation scenario the plutonium source terms are 100 % aerosolization and 20 % respirable fraction. In order to find the aerosolized similarity of plutonium and several conventional metals, two detonation experiments in which the stannum foil and the vanadium powder are used as the replacement of plutonium respectively have been conducted by our group. After the detonation the metal aerosols are collected and analyzed. It has been found that the metallic powder is much easier to be aerosolized than the foil while the integrated aerosol source terms (respirable mass fractions) of stannum and vanadium are quite different with plutonium. Unlike the integrated aerosol data, the differential source terms (cumulative mass fractions via particle size) of the simulative samples are partially similar with plutonium.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".