MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Material Surveillance of CANDU Zirconium 2.5%Wt Niobium Pressure Tubes

2006· article· en· W2047631295 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew Celovsky, B. Noye, R. Eager

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsBruce Power (Canada)Ontario Power GenerationAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoolantNuclear engineeringAnnulus (botany)ZirconiumMaterials scienceZirconium alloyNiobiumNuclear fuelTube (container)Environmental scienceMetallurgyPower stationNuclear physicsEngineeringComposite materialPhysicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are 26 operating CANDU nuclear power plants, varying in size from 540 to 880 MW(e). The majority (18) of these plants are located in Canada, with others located in Argentina, Korea, China, and Romania. These plants entered commercial service at various times between 1971 and 2003. As such, some of the plants are more than 30 years old. In addition, there are new plants under construction and some older plants under refurbishment. Each plant contains between 380 and 480 fuel channels, for a total of almost 11,000 fuel channels currently in-service. A fuel channel is comprised a Zr-2.5%Nb pressure tube, stainless steel endfittings, a zircaloy-2 calandria tube, and a series of annulus spacers (Figure 1). The pressure tube serves to: i) Support and locate the nuclear fuel bundles, ii) Form part of the pressure boundary of the heavy water coolant system, and iii) Provide an additional boundary between the nuclear fuel and the external environment.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Materials and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207