Regional overpower protection system analysis for the direct use of spent pressurized water reactor fuel in CANDU Reactors (DUPIC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The regional overpower protection (ROP) system of a Canada deuterium uranium (CANDU) reactor was assessed for the direct use of spent pressurized water reactor fuel in CANDU reactors (DUPIC), including the validation of the Winfrith improved multigroup scheme (WIMS)/reactor fuelling simulation program (RFSP)/reduction power (ROVER) code system used for the calculation of the ROP trip setpoint (TSP). Comparative calculations showed that the WIMS/RFSP/ROVER code system produced results consistent with the current design code system for estimating the ROP TSP of the standard natural uranium CANDU reactor. For the DUPIC fuel CANDU core, the ROP TSP was estimated to be 123.4%, which was almost the same as that of the standard natural uranium core. The extra margin of the ROP TSP for the DUPIC fuel system was enhanced by the flattened axial channel power distribution as well as the reduced refueling ripple of the channel power. This study has shown that the DUPIC fuel does not deteriorate the current ROP TSP designed for the natural uranium 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".