MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125859420 · doi:10.1109/tns.2007.901223

Power Reconstruction of Fuel Rods by Support Vector Regression for CANDU Reactors

2007· article· en· W2125859420 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Man Gyun Na, Heon Young Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupport vector machineLattice (music)BundleNuclear engineeringRodAlgorithmEnriched uraniumComputer sciencePhysicsNuclear physicsEngineeringUraniumMaterials scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A support vector regression (SVR) model has been presented for reconstructing fuel rod powers from Canada deuterium uranium core calculations performed with a coarse-mesh finite difference diffusion approximation and single-assembly lattice calculations. The SVR is to nonlinearly map the original data into a higher dimensional feature space. Parameters related to the SVR are optimized by a genetic algorithm using the partial core calculation results of two 6 times 6 fuel bundle models (for training data). Verification has been conducted for two other partial core benchmark problems composed of 6 times 6 and 3 times 3 fuel bundles (for test data). The reconstructed fuel rod powers are compared with the reference solutions obtained with the detailed collision probability calculations using the HELIOS lattice analysis code. It is known from simulation results that the proposed rod power reconstruction algorithm is accurate, yielding the error due to the reconstruction scheme of less than 0.35%.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Nuclear ScienceSame topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207