MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039111118 · doi:10.1115/icone12-49561

ACR™ Constructability: Increasing Confidence in Project Objectives

2004· article· en· W2039111118 on OpenAlexaff
Rick Ricciuti, Neville Fairclough, Len Hiebert, Medhat Elgohary, Stephen Yu

Bibliographic record

Venue12th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, Volume 1 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstructabilityScheduleEngineeringConstruction engineeringFormworkModular programmingPlan (archaeology)Computer scienceSystems engineeringOperations researchCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ACR-700 has been designed with safety, cost and schedule as major drivers. Early in the concept stage it was demonstrated that short construction schedules can be achieved by paralleling activities, using such techniques as extensive modularization, combined with open top construction of the reactor building, as well as using the latest construction techniques available such as climbing formwork, prefabricated rebar, automatic welding, etc. This paper looks at the continued evolution of detailed construction sequences as a planning tool tied to the Primavera schedule. It also looks at examples where cost and schedule become important factors in making engineering decisions associated with the construction method and sequence. Experience on the modularization benefits achieved from the recently completed Qinshan CANDU project is presented. Finally it draws conclusions on the confidence in achieving construction schedules for both the first and nth units of a series.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue12th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, Volume 1Same topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207