The Current Status on DUPIC Fuel Technology Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Direct Use of Spent Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Fuel in Canada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) Reactors (DUPIC) fuel technology has been developed by Korea, Canada and the United States (U.S.) since 1991 in order to utilize the PWR spent fuel in the CANDU reactor. The optimum fuel fabrication process was determined as the Oxidation and Reduction of Oxide Fuel (OREOX), based on the results of a feasibility study performed until 1993. Because the OREOX process uses only the thermal/mechanical process, the spent fuel standards are maintained throughout the process and the process is recognized as the most proliferation-resistant technology. In addition, because the amount of residual fissile isotopes in the PWR spent fuel is twice that of the natural uranium, the fuel burnup of the DUPIC fuel is twice that of the natural uranium fuel in the CANDU reactor. Therefore, as shown a direct disposal of the PWR spent fuel is no longer necessary, the natural uranium resources are preserved, and the amount of spent fuel from the CANDU reactor can be halved in the DUPIC fuel cycle. This paper summarizes the technical feasibility of the DUPIC fuel based on the research results obtained until now.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.006 |
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".