MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2253198368

THE UNIVERSITY OF PISA CALCULATIONS FOR THE PHASE I OF THE OECD/NEA UAM BENCHMARK

2009· article· en· W2253198368 on OpenAlexaff
Marguerite Ball, Carlo Parisi, Francesco Saverio D'Auria

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear Physics and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmark (surveying)Nuclear dataCovarianceCovariance matrixScope (computer science)Code (set theory)Scale (ratio)Phase (matter)LambdaComputer scienceMatrix (chemical analysis)MathematicsAlgorithmStatisticsPhysicsNuclear physicsGeographyNeutronProgramming languageChemistryOptics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we present the University of Pisa preliminary results for the first exercise of the Phase I of the OECD/NEA Benchmark on the Uncertainty in Analysis and Modeling. The scope of exercise one is to address the uncertainties due to the basic nuclear data as well as the impact of processing the nuclear and covariance data, selection of multi-group structure and self-shielding treatment. DRAGON code and TSUNAMI code were employed, using the available covariance data matrix. The execution of DRAGON calculations required the use of ANGELO and LAMBDA codes for the extension of the covariance matrix from the original SCALE 44 group structure to DRAGON 69 group structure. The uncertainties for the main cross sections were evaluated and are presented here.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Physics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207