MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291420388 · doi:10.12943/anr.2015.00043

CANADIAN NATIONAL NUCLEAR FORENSICS CAPABILITY PROJECT

2015· article· en· W2291420388 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
James E. Ball, Ike Dimayuga, Ian Summerell, Marina Totland, G. Jonkmans, J. Whitlock, Ali El‐Jaby, Elizabeth Inrig

Bibliographic record

VenueAECL Nuclear Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Safety CommissionDefence Research and Development CanadaRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
FundersCanadian Nuclear Safety CommissionHealth CanadaCanadian Nuclear LaboratoriesDepartment of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australian Government
KeywordsNuclear materialPreparednessNuclear weaponSummitNational securityNuclear terrorismComputer securityEnriched uraniumBusinessPolitical scienceComputer scienceUraniumLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit, Canada expanded its existing capability for nuclear forensics by establishing a national nuclear forensics laboratory network, which would include a capability to perform forensic analysis on nuclear and other radioactive material, as well as on traditional evidence contaminated with radioactive material. At the same time, the need for a national nuclear forensics library of signatures of nuclear and radioactive materials under Canadian regulatory control was recognized. The Canadian Safety and Security Program, administered by Defence Research and Development Canada's Centre for Security Science (DRDC CSS), funds science and technology initiatives to enhance Canada's preparedness for prevention of and response to potential threats. DRDC CSS, with assistance from Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, formerly Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, is leading the Canadian National Nuclear Forensics Capability Project to develop a coordinated, comprehensive, and timely national nuclear forensics capability.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2015
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAECL Nuclear ReviewSame topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207