MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2641495167

Stress-Corrosion Cracking Properties of Candidate Fuel Cladding Alloys for the Canadian SCWR: A Summary of Literature Data and Recent Test Results

2014· other· en· W2641495167 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wenyue Zheng, Yimin Zeng, Radek Novotný, Babak Shalchi Amirkhiz, Magdalene Matchim, Liqi Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueJoint Research Centre (European Commission) · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCladding (metalworking)Stress corrosion crackingMaterials scienceMetallurgyCorrosionCrackingStress (linguistics)Forensic engineeringComposite materialEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cracking of fuel claddings is a serious concern when selecting candidate alloys for the development of a next-generation reactor. Whether the cracking is due to an environment-metal interaction such as stress-corrosion, or a pure metallurgical process such as localized plastic deformation along grain boundaries, the final impact is the same: cracking of the cladding can lead to fuel failure. In the course of a review of potential candidate alloys in preparation for further assessment under conditions relevant to the Canadian SCWR concept, relevant cracking studies reported for five short-listed alloys (namely 310S, 347H, 800H, 625 and 214) in the open literature were examined, and the key findings are provided in this paper. Discussions are also made of the recent SCC data from capsule tests and slow-strain rate tests (SSRT) in supercritical water. The data suggest that there is a threshold strain level below which SCC is not developed during SSRT tests. The practical implication of this finding is also discussed.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJoint Research Centre (European Commission)Same topicNuclear Materials and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207