MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2466238223 · doi:10.12943/cnr.2015.00058

OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES RELATED TO THE DEPLOYMENT OF SMALL MODULAR REACTORS IN MINES IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORIES OF CANADA

2016· article· en· W2466238223 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Horatio Sam-Aggrey

Bibliographic record

VenueCNL Nuclear Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware deploymentNuclear powerModular designVulnerability (computing)BusinessSAFEREnvironmental planningEnvironmental economicsEnvironmental resource managementNatural resource economicsEngineeringEnvironmental scienceEconomicsComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small modular reactors (SMRs) are being touted as safer, more cost effective, and more flexible than traditional nuclear power plants. Consequently, it has been argued that SMR technology is pivotal to the revitalization of the nuclear industry at the national and global levels. Drawing mainly on previously published literature, this paper explores the opportunities and challenges related to the deployment of SMRs in the northern territories of Canada. The paper examines the potential role of SMRs in providing an opportunity for remote mines in northern Canada to reduce their vulnerability and dependence on costly, high-carbon diesel fuel. The paper also outlines and discusses some of the potential socio-economic barriers that could impede the successful introduction of SMRs in the territories. These issues include: economic factors (such as the price of primary minerals and economics of mineral exploration, and the cost of SMR deployment), the lack of infrastructure in the territories to support mining developments, and the issues pertaining to the social acceptance of nuclear power generation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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