MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mechanical Aspects of the Canadian Generation IV Supercritical Water-Cooled Pressure Tube Reactor

2012· article· en· W2046212265 on OpenAlexafffundabout
M. Yetisir, M. Gaudet

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSubcritical and Supercritical Water Processes
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsNuclear engineeringCoolantSupercritical fluidEnvironmental scienceElectricity generationFuel cycleWaste managementProcess engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringPower (physics)Chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada is developing a next generation (Gen IV) reactor, the Canadian Super-Critical Water-cooled Reactor (SCWR), which has the potential of meeting all design goals of the Gen IV International Forum (GIF). These design goals include enhanced safety features (inherent safe operation and deploying passive safety features), improved economic and resource utilization (∼40% more efficient than current nuclear power generating stations, sustainable fuel cycle (will burn thorium, which is three times more abundant than uranium), enhanced sustainability, and greater proliferation resistance compared to the current fleets (i.e., Gen III and Gen III+) of reactors. The Canadian SCWR concept is a pressure-tube type reactor that uses supercritical water as a coolant, a separate low-pressure heavy water moderator, a high efficiency fuel channel that includes a zirconium alloy pressure and a ceramic zirconia insulator, and a direct steam power cycle. This paper presents the evolution of the Canadian SCWR core design, simplifications introduced in the design to deal with design challenges, and ongoing design activities.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSubcritical and Supercritical Water ProcessesFrench-language works237,207