MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2282827438 · doi:10.1115/1.4031199

Steady-State Radiolysis of Supercritical Water: Model Predictions and Validation

2016· article· en· W2282827438 on OpenAlexaff
Veena Subramanian, Jiju M. Joseph, H. Subramanian, James J. Noël, D. Guzonas, J. Clara Wren

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSubcritical and Supercritical Water Processes
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear LaboratoriesWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiolysisSupercritical fluidAqueous solutionChemistrySupercritical water oxidationRadicalSolventRadiation chemistryMaterials scienceChemical reactionOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chemical kinetic models are being developed for the γ-radiolysis of subcritical and supercritical water (SCW) to estimate the concentrations of radiolytically produced oxidants. Many of the physical properties of water change sharply at the critical point. These properties control the chemical stability and transport behavior of the ions and radicals generated by the radiolysis of SCW. The effects of changes in the solvent properties of water on primary radiolytic processes and the subsequent aqueous reaction kinetics can be quite complicated and are not yet well understood. The approach used in this paper was to adapt an existing liquid water radiolysis model (LRM) that has already been validated for lower temperatures and a water vapor radiolysis model (VRM) validated for higher temperatures, but for lower pressures, to calculate radiolysis product speciation under conditions approaching the supercritical state. The results were then extrapolated to the supercritical regime by doing critical analysis of the input parameters. This exercise found that the vapor-like and liquid-like models make similar predictions under some conditions. This paper presents and discusses the LRM and VRM predictions for the concentrations of molecular radiolysis products, H2, O2, and H2O2 at two different irradiation times, 1 s and 1 hr, as a function of temperature ranging from 25°C to 400°C. The model simulation results are then compared with the concentrations of H2, O2, and H2O2 measured as a function of γ-irradiation time at 250°C. Model predictions on the effect of H2 addition on the radiolysis product concentrations at 400°C are presented and compared with the experimental results from the Beloyarsk Nuclear Power Plant (NPP).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation ScienceSame topicSubcritical and Supercritical Water ProcessesFrench-language works237,207