MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2186153411 · doi:10.13182/nse159-153

Benchmark Calculation of WIMS/RFSP against Physics Measurement Data of Wolsong Nuclear Power Plants

2008· article· en· W2186153411 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Science and Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriticalityNuclear dataNuclear engineeringNuclear physicsPhysicsNeutronEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractBenchmark calculations of Canada deuterium uranium (CANDU) reactor physics design and analysis codes have been performed for a lattice code WIMS-AECL, a supercell code DRAGON, and a core analysis code RFSP by using the physics measurement data of Wolsong nuclear power plants. In this study, the lattice and reactivity device models were examined based on Wolsong-2 measurement data for the criticality and reactivity device worth. Sensitivity calculations were also performed for the number of energy groups and the cross-section library. Using the lattice and reactivity device models obtained from the Wolsong-2 calculation, the benchmark calculations were extended to the Wolsong-3 and Wolsong-4 plants. Compared to a previous study, this study showed that the results of the criticality and reactivity device worth calculations were improved when the material data were updated and the exact two-group cross sections were used. For the three nuclear power plants, the calculated core reactivity was within 0.2% Δk of criticality. The zone controller unit reactivity worth was estimated to have a maximum error of ~8%. The total reactivity worth of other reactivity control devices was consistent with the measurement data within 13%. The root-mean-square error of the flux distribution calculation was <12% when compared with flux scans performed during Phase B physics tests. In conclusion, the CANDU physics design and analysis codes used in this benchmark study predicted the physics parameters within the allowed uncertainty level of the measurement data.View correction statement:The Yield Stress Radiation Damage Function of IronTheoretical Dose Transmission and Reflection Probabilities for 0.2 - 10.0 MeV Photons Obliquely Incident on Finite Concrete BarriersCorrigendumCross-Section Sensitivity Analysis of 235U and 238U Fission Rates Measured in a Graphite-Reflected Lithium Assembly“Uranium-238 to Uranium-235 Fission-Ratio Distribution in Spherical Lithium-Metal Assemblies With and Without a Graphite Reflector,”Variational Estimates of Reactivity Worths and Reaction Rate Ratios in Critical Nuclear ReactorsPerturbation Methods in Nuclear Reactors from the Importance Conservation PrincipleCorrigendumCorrigendum

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.164 · 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