Growth and Expansion of the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project and the Newly Organized International Reactor Physics Experiment Evaluation Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".