MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609644407 · doi:10.1080/00223131.2017.1315973

Development of a hybrid method to improve the sensitivity and uncertainty analysis for homogenized few-group cross sections

2017· article· en· W2609644407 on OpenAlexaff
Liangzhi Cao, Yong Liu, Wei Shen, Qingming He

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Science and Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGraphite, nuclear technology, radiation studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Safety Commission
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSensitivity (control systems)Uncertainty analysisGroup (periodic table)Nuclear engineeringChemistryMathematicsStatisticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the framework of two-step method of reactor core calculation, few-group homogenized cross sections generated by lattice-physics calculations are key input parameters for the three-dimensional full-core calculation. Conventional method for few-group cross-sections sensitivity and uncertainty (S&U) analysis related to the nuclear data was performed based on the effective self-shielding cross sections instead of the continuous-energy cross sections, which means resonance self-shielding effect (implicit effect) is neglected. Furthermore, the multi-group covariance data is generated from the continuous-energy cross sections. Therefore, in order to perform S&U analysis with respect to the continuous-energy cross sections for both accuracy and consistency, a hybrid method is proposed in this paper. The subgroup-parameter sensitivity-coefficients are calculated based on the direct perturbation (DP) method. The sensitivity-coefficients of the effective self-shielding cross sections and the responses (keff and few-group homogenized cross sections) are calculated based on the generalized perturbation theory (GPT). A boiling water reactor (BWR) pin-cell problem under different power conditions is calculated and analyzed. The numerical results reveal that the proposed hybrid method improves the sensitivity-coefficients of eigenvalue and few-group homogenized cross sections. The temperature effects on the sensitivity-coefficients are demonstrated and the uncertainties are analyzed.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear Science and TechnologySame topicGraphite, nuclear technology, radiation studiesFrench-language works237,207