MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088762221 · doi:10.1115/pvp2012-78227

Understanding Equivalent Margins Analysis for Required Upper Shelf Energy

2012· article· en· W2088762221 on OpenAlex
Michael L. Benson, Gary L. Stevens, Mark Kirk, Russell C. Cipolla, Douglas A. Scarth

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

VenueVolume 1: Codes and Standards · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPressure vesselCommissionCode (set theory)Code of practiceBoiler (water heating)Section (typography)EngineeringComputer scienceNuclear engineeringMechanical engineeringStructural engineeringSet (abstract data type)LawConstruction engineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Equivalent Margins Analysis (EMA) involves the calculation of an alternative minimum reactor pressure vessel (RPV) upper shelf energy (USE) when the projected value falls below current limits codified in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (10 CFR 50), Appendix G. One set of calculation methodologies for performing the analysis are provided in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.161 and American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code), Section XI, nonmandatory Appendix K. Careful application of fracture mechanics principles is necessary in order to properly carry out the evaluation. This is particularly the case for demonstrating compliance with the ductile crack growth stability criterion. This paper discusses robust implementation of EMA calculations and identifies recommended changes to RG 1.161 and ASME Code, Section XI, nonmandatory Appendix K.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.210 · 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