MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164129997 · doi:10.1109/tai.1995.479519

Reasoning about nuclear physics processes

2002· article· en· W2164129997 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Nuclear reactionPhysicsRepresentation (politics)Computer scienceNuclear physicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper discusses a model for reasoning about nuclear physics processes. Nuclear process theory (NPT) is a formal knowledge representation system for nuclear physics processes. Knowledge of the nuclear physics process is expressed in terms of a basic nuclear physics model and an aggregate effects model. The basic nuclear physics model has the capability of expressing knowledge of nuclear physics processes for different types of reactions. The products of reactions are expressed as deterministic or probabilistic values. The aggregate effects model coordinates basic nuclear physics processes expressed an the basic nuclear physics model. NPT, along with the simulator designed for NPT, can be used to reason about nuclear physics processes. Results of a simulation with an enriched natural uranium (a mixture of 14% U235 and 86% U238) are presented.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningFrench-language works237,207