A Document-Driven Method for Certifying Scientific Computing Software for Use in Nuclear Safety Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a documentation and development method to facilitate the certification of scientific computing software used in the safety analysis of nuclear facilities. To study the problems faced during quality assurance and certification activities, a case study was performed on legacy software used for thermal analysis of a fuelpin in a nuclear reactor. Although no errors were uncovered in the code, 27 issues of incompleteness and inconsistency were found with the documentation. This work proposes that software documentation follow a rational process, which includes a software requirements specification following a template that is reusable, maintainable, and understandable. To develop the design and implementation, this paper suggests literate programming as an alternative to traditional structured programming. Literate programming allows for documenting of numerical algorithms and code together in what is termed the literate programmer's manual. This manual is developed with explicit traceability to the software requirements specification. The traceability between the theory, numerical algorithms, and implementation facilitates achieving completeness and consistency, as well as simplifies the process of verification and the associated certification.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it