ENDF-102 DATA FORMATS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE EVALUATION NUCLEAR DATA FILE ENDF-6.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Evaluated Nuclear Data File (ENDF) formats and libraries are decided by the Cross Section Evaluation Working Group (CSEWG), a cooperative effort of national laboratories, industry, and universities in the U.S. and Canada, and are maintained by the National Nuclear Data Center (NNDC). Earlier versions of the ENDF format provided representations for neutron cross sections and distributions, photon production from neutron reactions, a limited amount of charged-particle production from neutron reactions, photo-atomic interaction data, thermal neutron scattering data, and radionuclide production and decay data (including fission products). Version 6 (ENDF-6) allows higher incident energies, adds more complete descriptions of the distributions of emitted particles, and provides for incident charged particles and photonuclear data by partitioning the ENDF library into sub-libraries. Decay data, fission product yield data, thermal scattering data, and photo-atomic data have also been formally placed in sub-libraries. In addition, this rewrite represents an extensive update to the Version V manual.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it