MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165693237 · doi:10.1115/icone14-89640

An Example of an INPRO Assessment of an INS in the Area of Waste Management

2006· article· en· W2165693237 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C. J. Allan, Y. Busurin, F. Depisch

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 3: Structural Integrity; Nuclear Engineering Advances; Next Generation Systems; Near Term Deployment and Promotion of Nuclear Energy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcceptance testingNuclear fuel cycleRadioactive wasteEngineeringSystems engineeringComputer scienceEngineering managementWaste managementSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following a resolution of the General Conference of the IAEA in the year 2000 the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles, referred to as INPRO, was initiated. INPRO has defined requirements organized in a hierarchy of Basic Principles, User Requirements and Criteria (consisting of an indicator and an acceptance limit) to be met by innovative nuclear reactor systems (INS) in six areas, namely: economics, safety, waste management, environment, proliferation resistance, and infrastructure. If an INS meets all requirements in all areas it represents a sustainable system for the supply of energy, capable of making a significant contribution to meeting the energy needs of the 21st century. Draft manuals have been developed, for each INPRO area, to provide guidance for performing an assessment of whether an INS meets the INPRO requirements in a given area. The manuals set out the information that needs to be assembled to perform an assessment and provide guidance on selecting the acceptance limits and, for a given INS, for determining the value of the indicators for comparison with the associated acceptance limits. Each manual also includes an example of a specific assessment to illustrate the guidance. This paper discusses the example presented in the manual for performing an INPRO assessment in the area of waste management. The example, chosen solely for the purpose of illustrating the INPRO methodology, describes an assessment of an INS based on the DUPIC fuel cycle. It is assumed that uranium is mined, milled, converted, enriched, and fabricated into LWR fuel in Canada. The LWR fuel is assumed to be leased to a utility in the USA. The spent LWR fuel is assumed to be returned to Canada where it is processed into CANDU DUPIC fuel, which is then burned in CANDU reactors. The assessment steps and the results are presented in detail in the paper. The example illustrates an assessment performed for an INS at an early stage of development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 3: Structural Integrity; Nuclear Engineering Advances; Next Generation Systems; Near Term Deployment and Promotion of Nuclear EnergySame topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207