MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113629412 · doi:10.13182/nt07-a3798

Progress of the DUPIC Fuel Compatibility Analysis - IV: Fuel Performance

2007· article· en· W2113629412 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Technology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear engineeringBurnupFuel element failureDecay heatSpent fuel poolNuclear fuelSpent nuclear fuelThorium fuel cycleCompatibility (geochemistry)UraniumMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceNuclear chemistryWaste managementMOX fuelChemistryEngineeringComposite materialMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study describes the mechanical compatibility of the direct use of spent pressurized water reactor fuel in Canada deuterium uranium (CANDU) reactors (DUPIC) fuel when it is loaded into a CANDU reactor. The mechanical compatibility can be assessed for the fuel management, primary heat transport system, fuel channel, and fuel handling system in the reactor core by both experimental and analytic methods. Because the physical dimensions of the DUPIC fuel bundle adopt the CANDU flexible (CANFLEX) fuel bundle design, which has already been demonstrated for a commercial use in CANDU reactors, the experimental compatibility analyses focused on the generation of material property data and the irradiation tests of the DUPIC fuel, which are used for the computational analysis. The intermediate results of the mechanical compatibility analysis have shown that the integrity of the DUPIC fuel is mostly maintained under the high-power and high-burnup conditions even though some material properties, such as the thermal conductivity, are a little lower compared to the uranium fuel. However, it is required that the current DUPIC fuel design be changed slightly to accommodate the high internal pressure of the fuel element. It is also strongly recommended that more irradiation tests of the DUPIC fuel be performed to accumulate a database for the demonstration of the DUPIC fuel performance in the CANDU reactor.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.218 · 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