MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586967194

CANADA’S GENERATION IV NATIONAL PROGRAM

2016· article· en· W2586967194 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
G. Pynn, Daniel Brady, Wenyue Zheng, Linda Leung, Colin Mackinlay

Bibliographic record

VenueCNL Nuclear Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSubcritical and Supercritical Water Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Political scienceNational laboratoryPhase (matter)Nuclear powerResearch programPublic administrationEngineeringEngineering physicsMechanical engineeringPhysicsNuclear physics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada’s Generation-IV National Program was established in 2005 to coordinate research and development (R&D) in support of the development of a supercritical water-cooled reactor (SCWR) concept to provide safe, economical, and clean power to Canadians in the future. It has undergone 2 phases involving federal laboratories, federal agencies, and academia. The majority of work in Phase I focused on establishing the infrastructure with collaborating partners and performing fundamental R&D, whereas those in Phase II focused more on applied R&D to support completing the Canadian SCWR concept.Given the fundamental and long-term nature of Generation IV research, Canadian universities had to be actively engaged in addressing the challenges of the nuclear reactor system. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, formerly Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, has played an integral role in achieving the goals of the Generation IV National Program by leading the SCWR concept design and by effectively partnering with other national ...

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.005

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCNL Nuclear ReviewSame topicSubcritical and Supercritical Water ProcessesFrench-language works237,207