Harmonization of Nuclear Codes and Standards - Pacific Nuclear Council Working and Task Group Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is 2nd report on the Group activities and covers the progress since the last report presented in 2004 at the PBNC Conference in Hawaii, USA in March 2004. The Pacific Nuclear Council (PNC) recognized the need for harmonization of the nuclear codes and standards for its member countries back in late 90's. Most of the major nuclear vendor countries (USA, Canada, Japan, S. Korea, China) have established a set of nuclear codes and standards in support of its reactor concepts. As most of these standards are technology based, there are a number of similarities between these codes and standards at least for the technology part (e.g. ASME on pressure vessels and piping). The differences are mainly on the administrative aspects and on the application of technologies. Considering some of the these similarities and the need for rationalization and harmonization between the Pacific rim countries, the PNC formed a Task Group to look into the Codes and Standards area. The group was formed in late 90's and started its work in 2000 / 2001. The Task Group requested participation from a number of PNC member countries. The TG mandate is to review and identify the nuclear codes and standards used by the member countries and recommend a harmonized suite of CandS for use in the nuclear arena by the PNC member and non-member organizations. The objective is to cover both the research and power reactors. The PNC took a bit of time to obtain nominations from the member countries for qualified members for its TG work activities. For the last two years it has established a core membership base and active participation from some of its key members. This paper presents a status report on the TG mandate and activities, its membership, work done to date and its major milestones and deliverables.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.071 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.018 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".