MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149230766

“CANDU® 6 Nuclear Power Plant and nuclear energy self-sufficiency based on Cernavoda NPP in Romania”

2011· article· en· W2149230766 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jerzy Parkitny, M Gheorghe

Bibliographic record

VenueBiuletyn Instytutu Techniki Cieplnej · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear power plantNuclear powerEngineeringNuclear engineeringNuclear reactorTechnology transferBusinessNuclear physicsInternational trade
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The CANDU ® 6 nuclear power reactor design has been in commercial operation since the 1980’s and is currently in operation in several countries, including Canada, Argentina, South Korea, China and Romania. CANDU technology which is necessary for the design, construction licensing and operation of a nuclear power plant has been and can be efficiently transferred to a recipient country through a technology transfer program. This paper presents the key factors in the transfer of CANDU nuclear technology and provides an overview of AECL experience based on technology transfer to Romania for the Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant project. The focus of this paper, apart from a brief overview of the CANDU design, is to demonstrate how the selection of the CANDU technology can benefit a host country, using the Cernavoda nuclear power plant (NPP) in Romania as an example.  Similar benefits, in terms of economic development and nuclear energy self-sufficiency, have also been achieved by other countries that have selected the CANDU reactor technology and can also be achieved by any new customer.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.140
Teacher spread0.134 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Theoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Other

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiuletyn Instytutu Techniki CieplnejSame topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207