Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two-phase thermal hydraulics code, CUPID for multi-dimensional, multi-physics and multi-scale analysis in PWR was parallelized to fulfil the demand for long transient or high-resolved thermal hydraulics calculation. the CUPID code was parallelized based on the domain decomposition method with MPI (Message Passing Interface). For domain decomposition, the CUPID code provides both manual and automatic method with METIS library. For the effective memory management, the CSR (Compressed Sparse Row) format is adopted, which is one of the methods to represent the sparse asymmetric matrix. By performing the verification for the fundamental problem set, the parallelization of the CUPID has been successfully confirmed. In this paper, the characteristics of the parallelized CUPID code were investigated. Since the scalability of a parallel simulation is generally known to be better for fine mesh system, three types of mesh system are considered: 40,000 meshes for coarse system, 320,000 meshes for fine system. In the given geometry, both single- and two-phase calculations are conducted. In addition, two types of preconditioning for matrix solver were compared: diagonal and incomplete LU preconditioning.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".