The IAEA’s International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the IAEA International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO). It defines its rationale, key objectives and specifies the organizational structure. The IAEA General Conference (2000) has invited “all interested Member States to combine their efforts under the aegis of the Agency in considering the issues of the nuclear fuel cycle, in particular by examining innovative and proliferation-resistant nuclear technology” (GC(44)/RES/21) and invited Member States to consider to contribute to a task force on innovative nuclear reactors and fuel cycle (GC(44)/RES/22). In response to this invitation, the IAEA initiated an “International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles”, INPRO. The Terms of Reference for INPRO were adopted at a preparatory meeting in November 2000, and the project was finally launched by the INPRO Steering Committee in May 2001. At the General Conference in 2001, first progress was reported, and the General Conference adopted a resolution on “Agency Activities in the Development of Innovative Nuclear Technology” [GC(45)/RES/12, Tab F], giving INPRO a broad basis of support. The resolution recognized the “unique role that the Agency can play in international collaboration in the nuclear field”. It invited both “interested Member States to contribute to innovative nuclear technology activities” at the Agency as well as the Agency itself “to continue it’s efforts in these areas”. Additional endorsement came in a UN General Assembly resolution in December 2001 (UN GA 2001, A/RES/56/94), that again emphasized “the unique role that the Agency can play in developing user requirements and in addressing safeguards, safety and environmental questions for innovative reactors and their fuel cycles” and stressed “the need for international collaboration in the development of innovative nuclear technology”. As of February 2002, the following countries or entities have become members of INPRO: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation, Spain, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Turkey and the European Commission. In total, 15 cost-free experts have been nominated by their respective governments or international organizations. The objective of INPRO is to support the safe, sustainable, economic and proliferation resistant use of nuclear technology to meet the global energy needs of the 21st century. Phase I of INPRO was initiated in May 2001. During Phase I, work is subdivided in two subphases: Phase IA (in progress): Selection of criteria and development of methodologies and guidelines for the comparison of different concepts and approaches, taking into account the compilation and review of such concepts and approaches, and determination of user requirements. Phase IB (to be started after Phase IA is completed): Examination of innovative nuclear energy technologies made available by Member States against criteria and requirements. This examination will be co-ordinated by the Agency and performed with participatio of Member States on the basis of the user requirements and methodologies established in Phase IA. In the first phase, six subject groups were established: Resources, Demand and User requirements for Economics; User requirements for the Environment, Fuel cycle and Waste; User requirements for Safety; User requirements for Non-proliferation; User requirements for crosscutting issues; Criteria and Methodology.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".