MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164777852 · doi:10.13182/fst05-a920

Operating Experience of the Tritium Laboratory at CRL

2005· article· en· W2164777852 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

VenueFusion Science & Technology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRadioactive contamination and transfer
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceReliability (semiconductor)Reliability engineeringSystems engineeringMedical physicsEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Chalk River Laboratories Tritium Laboratory has been operating safely and reliably for over 20 years. Safe operations are achieved through proper management, supervision, training and using approved operating procedures and techniques. Reliability is achieved through appropriate equipment selection, routine equipment surveillance testing and routine preventative maintenance. This paper summarizes the laboratory’s standard operating protocols and formal compliance programs followed to ensure safe operations. The paper will also review the general set-up of the laboratory and will focus on the experience gained with the operation of various types of equipment such as tritium monitors, tritium analyzers, pumps, purification systems and other systems used in the laboratory during its 20 years of operation.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.244
Teacher spread0.237 · 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