MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317522250 · doi:10.1097/hp.0000000000000140

Further Evaluations of the Toxicity of Irradiated Advanced Heavy Water Reactor Fuels

2014· article· en· W2317522250 on OpenAlexaffabout
Geoffrey W.R. Edwards, Nicholas D. Priest

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlutoniumUraniumNatural uraniumMOX fuelThorium fuel cycleRadiochemistryNuclear reprocessingSpent nuclear fuelSpent fuel poolNuclear fuelUranium-233Environmental scienceThoriumWaste managementPlutonium-240Solid fuelChemistryNuclear engineeringPlutonium-239Nuclear chemistryMaterials scienceNeutronMetallurgyCombustionNuclear physicsFissionEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The neutron economy and online refueling capability of heavy water moderated reactors enable them to use many different fuel types, such as low enriched uranium, plutonium mixed with uranium, or plutonium and/or U mixed with thorium, in addition to their traditional natural uranium fuel. However, the toxicity and radiological protection methods for fuels other than natural uranium are not well established. A previous paper by the current authors compared the composition and toxicity of irradiated natural uranium to that of three potential advanced heavy water fuels not containing plutonium, and this work uses the same method to compare irradiated natural uranium to three other fuels that do contain plutonium in their initial composition. All three of the new fuels are assumed to incorporate plutonium isotopes characteristic of those that would be recovered from light water reactor fuel via reprocessing. The first fuel investigated is a homogeneous thorium-plutonium fuel designed for a once-through fuel cycle without reprocessing. The second fuel is a heterogeneous thorium-plutonium-U bundle, with graded enrichments of U in different parts of a single fuel assembly. This fuel is assumed to be part of a recycling scenario in which U from previously irradiated fuel is recovered. The third fuel is one in which plutonium and Am are mixed with natural uranium. Each of these fuels, because of the presence of plutonium in the initial composition, is determined to be considerably more radiotoxic than is standard natural uranium. Canadian nuclear safety regulations require that techniques be available for the measurement of 1 mSv of committed effective dose after exposure to irradiated fuel. For natural uranium fuel, the isotope Pu is a significant contributor to the committed effective dose after exposure, and thermal ionization mass spectrometry is sensitive enough that the amount of Pu excreted in urine is sufficient to estimate internal doses, from all isotopes, as low as 1 mSv. In addition, if this method is extended so that Pu is also measured, then the combined amount of Pu and Pu is sufficiently high in the thorium-plutonium fuel that a committed effective dose of 1 mSv would be measurable. However, the fraction of Pu and Pu in the other two fuels is sufficiently low that a 1 mSv dose would remain below the detection limit using this technique. Thus new methods, such as fecal measurements of Pu (or other alpha emitters), will be required to measure exposure to these new fuels.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PhysicsSame topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207