EVOLUTION OF THE CANADIAN SCWR FUEL-ASSEMBLY CONCEPT AND ASSESSMENT OF THE 64 ELEMENT ASSEMBLY FOR THERMALHYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada has participated in the Generation IV (Gen-IV) International Forum with a main focus on the pressure-tube type supercritical water-cooled reactor (SCWR) concept. The Canadian SCWR concept is a heavy water moderated and light water cooled reactor. The research and development framework for development of the Canadian SCWR fuel-assembly concept includes experiments, analysis, subchannel code development, and applications, as well as coupled neutronic and thermalhydraulic analyses. The evolution of the Canadian SCWR fuel-assembly concept is summarized in this paper to demonstrate the enhanced performance characteristics and to show that the peak fuel cladding temperature is within allowed limits. The peak cladding temperature is a limiting thermalhydraulic parameter for the Canadian SCWR fuel assembly and is calculated using the ASSERT-PV subchannel code under steady state normal operating conditions with axial and radial power profiles corresponding to the beginning and the end of the fuel cycle. The power profiles were obtained from WIMS AECL/RFSP and MCNP physics code calculations. Using the ASSERT-PV subchannel code, the geometry of the Canadian SCWR fuel assembly has been further optimized to reduce the peak fuel cladding temperature for axial and radial power profiles of interest to the Canadian SCWR concept.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".