MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088221454 · doi:10.1504/ijnest.2011.039244

Accuracy in temperature sensor response time estimation for new nuclear reactor designs

2011· article· en· W2088221454 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear Engineering Thermal-Hydraulics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResponse timeNuclear power plantNuclear engineeringStep responseEnvironmental scienceResponse analysisMaterials scienceComputer scienceTime constantEngineeringElectrical engineeringStructural engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One method for measuring the response time of temperature sensors, the plunge test, verifies that the sensor has a suitable response time in the laboratory before installation. However, plunge test results cannot be extrapolated to the response time in an operating plant because response time is affected by multiple factors such as the ratio of internal heat-transfer resistance to the surface heat-transfer resistance, or Biot Modulus. The estimation method presented here can be used to extrapolate laboratory response-time measurements to determine sensor response time in another medium, in different test conditions, or in actual applications such as a nuclear power plant. However, experiments conducted at Oak Ridge National Laboratory have confirmed that the effect of temperature on sensor response time cannot be estimated confidently in an operating environment. Therefore, the loop current step response (LCSR) method was developed to measure the actual in-service response time of nuclear plant temperature sensors.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.214 · 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