MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2284364381 · doi:10.12943/anr.2012.00013

Proliferation Resistance Considerations for Remote Small Modular Reactors

2012· article· en· W2284364381 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueAECL Nuclear Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModular designTransparency (behavior)Key (lock)Risk analysis (engineering)Systems engineeringComputer scienceProcess (computing)Production (economics)EngineeringComputer securityBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Remotely located Small Modular Reactors at the low end of energy production (on the order of 10 MWe, referenced here as Very Small Modular Reactors or VSMRs) present unique proliferation resistance advantages and challenges. Addressing these challenges in the most efficient manner may not only be desirable, but necessary, for development of this technology. Incorporation of safeguards considerations early in the design process (Safeguards by Design) along with safety, security, economics and other key drivers, is of importance. This approach raises the possibility of increased monitoring of operational data for verification purposes (Operational Transparency), which may become a useful aspect of the safeguards approach for such systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.208 · 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