MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fitness-for-Service Assessment for Steam Generator Tube Fretting at Darlington Nuclear Generating Station

2006· article· en· W2030339762 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sandra Pagan, Brian Mills, Michael J. Kozluk

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 1: Codes and Standards · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)Atomic Energy (Canada)Ontario Power Generation
FundersCanadian Nuclear Safety Commission
KeywordsBoiler (water heating)EngineeringReliability engineeringScheduleProcess (computing)Nuclear powerService (business)Generator (circuit theory)Nuclear power plantFrettingPower stationNuclear engineeringComputer sciencePower (physics)Waste managementElectrical engineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has developed and implemented a systematic managed process for steam generators at all of its facilities. One of the key requirements of this managed process is to have in place long range Steam Generator Life Cycle Management (SG LCM) plans for each of its reactor units. The primary goal of these plans is to maximize the value of the nuclear facility through safe and reliable steam generator operation over the expected life of the units. These SG LCM plans integrate and schedule all steam generator actions such as inspection, operation, maintenance, repairs, modifications, assessments, performance monitoring, research and development, and feedback. This paper provides an overview of how structural and leak-rate testing, being conducted by OPG, is being used to support fitness-for-service assessments for fretting degradation in the U-bend region of the recirculating steam generators at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 1: Codes and StandardsSame topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207