MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339522212 · doi:10.12943/cnr.2015.00044

SHORT-TERM STORAGE CONSIDERATIONS FOR SPENT PLUTONIUM–THORIUM FUEL BUNDLES

2015· article· en· W2339522212 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 · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlutoniumSpent nuclear fuelElectromagnetic shieldingNuclear engineeringCriticalitySpent fuel poolEnvironmental scienceMOX fuelPressurized water reactorBundleLight-water reactorWaste managementMaterials scienceEngineeringNuclear chemistryNuclear physicsPhysicsChemistryElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To support the development of advanced pressurized heavy water reactor (PHWR) fuel cycles, it is necessary to study short-term storage solutions for spent reactor fuel. In this paper, some representational criticality safety and shielding assessments are presented for a particular PHWR plutonium–thorium based fuel bundle concept in a hypothetical aboveground dry storage module. The criticality assessment found that the important parameters for the storage design are neutron absorber content and fuel composition, particularly in light of the high sensitivity of code results to plutonium. The shielding assessment showed that the shielding as presented in the paper would need to be redesigned to provide greater gamma attenuation. These findings can be used to aid in designing fuel storage facilities.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.207 · 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