MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339899602 · doi:10.2172/1096165

Used Fuel Disposition Campaign: Embrittlement and DBTT of High-Burnup PWR Fuel Cladding Alloys

2013· report· en· W2339899602 on OpenAlexfundno aff
M.C. Billone, Tatyana Burtseva, Zhuoqun Han, Y. Y. Liu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Foundation for Dietetic Research
KeywordsEmbrittlementBurnupMaterials scienceCladding (metalworking)HydrideMetallurgyNuclear engineeringComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structural analyses of high-burnup (HBU) fuel require cladding mechanical properties and failure limits to assess fuel behavior during long-term dry-cask storage and transportation. Pre-storage drying-transfer operations and early stage storage subject cladding to higher temperatures and pressure-induced tensile hoop stresses relative to in-reactor operation and pool storage. Under these conditions, radial hydrides may precipitate during slow cooling and provide an additional embrittlement mechanism as the cladding temperature decreases below the ductile-to-brittle transition temperature (DBTT). On the basis of previous test results, susceptibility to radial-hydride precipitation depends on cladding material and microstructure, hydrogen content (CH), and pre-drying hydride distribution, as well as peak hoop stresses and temperatures during drying operations and storage. Susceptibility to embrittlement depends on the extent of radial-hydride precipitation, the number density of circumferential hydrides, and the thickness of the outer-surface hydride rim. The goal of the testing program is to determine drying-storage conditions for which the cladding remains ductile at ambient temperature, in other words, with the DBTT ≤20°C.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0130.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.227 · 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.

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

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Materials and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207