MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Integrated modelling for prediction of optimized ITER performance

2011· article· en· W2057881241 on OpenAlexfundno aff
A.H. Kritz, T. Rafiq, C. Kessel, G. Bateman, D. McCune, R. Budny, A.Y. Pankin

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Fusion · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Circulatory and Respiratory HealthU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsFusionFusion powerSteady state (chemistry)Bootstrap currentPhysicsNeutral beam injectionNuclear engineeringPower (physics)Current (fluid)ToroidComputational physicsMechanicsNuclear physicsTokamakPlasmaChemistryThermodynamicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ITER hybrid and target steady-state fusion burn scenarios are simulated using the PTRANSP integrated modelling code together with input from the TSC code. In the hybrid scenarios, the majority of the current is driven inductively; whereas, for the target steady-state scenarios, approximately 22% of the current (at 1000 s) is driven inductively with the remaining current driven by the bootstrap, neutral beam and radio frequency sources. Predictive simulations are carried out using either the new Multi-Mode or the GLF23 anomalous transport model. Momentum transport is used to compute the toroidal angular frequency profile which, in turn, is used to compute the self-consistent flow shear suppression of anomalous transport. The simulations of the hybrid scenario indicate that the fusion power production at 1000 s will be approximately 500 MW corresponding to a fusion Q = 9.4. The fusion power predicted in the simulations of the target steady-state scenarios is found to depend on the time dependence of the input heating and associated current drive. It is found that turning off some components of auxiliary heating causes the fusion power production to increase. The fusion power obtained in the target steady-state scenarios, depending on the transport model and input injected power, ranges from 168 MW up to 226 MW, corresponding to a fusion Q ranging from 2.0 to 6.8.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear FusionSame topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207