MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2287832134 · doi:10.13182/nt07-a3889

Irradiation Testing of High-Power-Density Vibropacked Annular Fuel

2007· article· en· W2287832134 on OpenAlexfundno aff
G. Kohse, David Carpenter, Yi Yuan, Pavel Hejzlar, Mujid S. Kazimi

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Technology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKorea Atomic Energy Research InstituteU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionAtomic Energy of Canada LimitedU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsBurnupIrradiationNuclear engineeringThermal hydraulicsMaterials scienceResearch reactorPower densityFissionFission productsThermalRadiochemistryCollimated lightEnvironmental scienceNuclear physicsPower (physics)ChemistryThermodynamicsPhysicsHeat transferOpticsNeutronEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes an irradiation test of high-power-density internally and externally cooled annular fuel samples in the 5-MW Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) research reactor MITR-II. The design of the irradiation facility is briefly reviewed, with an emphasis on the thermal-hydraulic behavior of the irradiation capsules. The irradiation test is described, including the thermal history of the two irradiated samples. A discussion of the observed asymmetrical temperature profiles is provided. Results of preliminary postirradiation examination consisting of collimated gamma scans of the irradiation capsules to confirm burnup estimates and estimate fission gas release (FGR) are also presented. It is concluded that the vibropacked fuel samples’ FGR is below 1%, and that is within the predictable range by a specially equipped FRAPCON model.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear TechnologySame topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207