MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2397828612 · doi:10.12943/cnr.2015.00061

POWER LEVEL EFFECTS ON THORIUM-BASED FUELS IN PRESSURE-TUBE HEAVY WATER REACTORS

2016· article· en· W2397828612 on OpenAlex
Blair P. Bromley, Geoffrey W.R. Edwards, Pranavan Sambavalingam

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

VenueCNL Nuclear Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurnupNuclear engineeringFissile materialNeutron fluxEnvironmental scienceThorium fuel cycleThoriumNuclear physicsNeutronPhysicsEngineeringUranium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lattice and core physics modeling and calculations have been performed to quantify the impact of power/flux levels on the reactivity and achievable burnup for 35-element fuel bundles made with Pu/Th or U-233/Th. The fissile content in these bundles has been adjusted to produce on the order of 20 MWd/kg burnup in homogeneous cores in a 700 MWe-class pressure-tube heavy water reactor, operating on a once-through thorium cycle. Results demonstrate that the impact of the power/flux level is modest for Pu/Th fuels but significant for U-233/Th fuels. In particular, high power/flux reduces the breeding and burnup potential of U-233/Th fuels. Thus, there may be an incentive to operate reactors with U-233/Th fuels at a lower power density or to develop alternative refueling schemes that will lower the time-average specific power, thereby increasing burnup.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.197 · 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