MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2268081733

Growth and Expansion of the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project and the Newly Organized International Reactor Physics Experiment Evaluation Project

2007· paratext· en· W2268081733 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. Blair Briggs, Lori Scott, Y. Rugama, Enrico Satori

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas) · 2007
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsCriticalityBenchmark (surveying)Nuclear engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringSystems engineeringNuclear physicsPhysicsGeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since ICNC 2003, the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP) has continued to expand its efforts and broaden its scope. Criticality-alarm / shielding type benchmarks and fundamental physics measurements that are relevant to criticality safety applications are not only included in the scope of the project, but benchmark data are also included in the latest version of the handbook. A considerable number of improvements have been made to the searchable database, DICE and the criticality-alarm / shielding benchmarks and fundamental physics measurements have been included in the database. There were 12 countries participating on the ICSBEP in 2003. That number has increased to 18 with recent contributions of data and/or resources from Brazil, Czech Republic, Poland, India, Canada, and China. South Africa, Germany, Argentina, and Australia have been invited to participate. Since ICNC 2003, the contents of the “International Handbook of Evaluated Criticality Safety Benchmark Experiments” have increased from 350 evaluations (28,000 pages) containing benchmark specifications for 3070 critical or subcritical configurations to 442 evaluations (over 38,000 pages) containing benchmark specifications for 3957 critical or subcritical configurations, 23 criticality-alarm-placement / shielding configurations with multiple dose points for each, and 20 configurations that have been categorized as fundamental physics measurements that are relevant to criticality safety applications in the 2006 Edition of the ICSBEP Handbook. Approximately 30 new evaluations and 250 additional configurations are expected to be added to the 2007 Edition of the Handbook. Since ICNC 2003, a reactor physics counterpart to the ICSBEP, The International Reactor Physics Experiment Evaluation Project (IRPhEP) was initiated. Beginning in 1999, the IRPhEP was conducted as a pilot activity by the by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Nuclear Science Committee (NSC). The project was endorsed as an official activity of the NSC in June of 2003. The IRPhEP is patterned after its predecessor, the ICSBEP, but focuses on other integral measurements such as buckling, spectral characteristics, reactivity effects, reactivity coefficients, kinetics measurements, reaction-rate and power distributions, nuclide compositions and other miscellaneous types of measurements in addition to the critical configuration. The two projects are closely coordinated to avoid duplication of effort and to leverage limited resources to achieve a common goal. The purpose of the IRPhEP is to provide an extensively peer reviewed set of reactor physics related integral benchmark data that can be used by reactor designers and safety analysts to validate the analytical tools used to design next generation reactors and establish the safety basis for operation of these reactors. While coordination and administration of the IRPhEP takes place at an international level, each participating country is responsible for the administration, technical direction, and priorities of the project within their respective countries. The work of the IRPhEP is documented in an OECD NEA Handbook entitled, “International Handbook of Evaluated Reactor Physics Benchmark Experiments.” The first edition of this Handbook, the 2006 Edition spans over 2000 pages and contains data from 16 different experimental series that were

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)0.085
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0850.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.008

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas)Same topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207