MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2219100775 · doi:10.2172/814773

System health report for 241-T - 241-TX - 241T-Y and 241-C farm structures and mixing and monitoring

2003· report· en· W2219100775 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
L S KROGSRUD

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Mixing (physics)CalibrationEnvironmental scienceWaste managementEngineeringGeographyMathematicsPhysicsStatisticsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This document describes System Health status for T, TX, TY, and C TANK STRUCTURES, MIXING AND MONITORING during the 2nd quarter of calendar year 2003. This quarter's system health report is the first one grouping together the T, TX, TY, and C tank farms. Previously, the T Complex farms were covered in RPP-9944, ''System Health Report for T, TX, TY, and U Waste Tank Structures, Mixing and Monitoring'', while C farm was covered in RPP-9909, ''System Health Report for A, Ax, and C Farm Structures, Mixing, and Monitoring''. The change in grouping was made to remain consistent with recent changes in system engineering assignments. Information for each farm was extracted from previous reports to provide past quarter's data for comparison with this quarter. The T, TX, TY, and C Waste Tank Structures, Mixing, and Monitoring System receives a Good rating with overall ''No Change'' trending this quarter. The primary components in this system functioned as expected and required with the exception of one ENRAF level gauge component failure. The primary components include the tanks themselves, ENRAF level gauges, thermocouple trees, and Liquid Observation Wells (LOW). A special focus examination of equipment calibration was conducted during the quarter. No out of calibration equipment was found.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207