MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755038497 · doi:10.1115/1.4037898

Overview of Boiling Water Reactor Steam Dryer Alternating Stress Assessment Procedures

2017· article· en· W2755038497 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear Engineering Thermal-Hydraulics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear engineeringBoilingBoiling water reactorEnvironmental scienceNuclear powerPressurized water reactorStress (linguistics)Materials scienceNuclear reactorStress corrosion crackingWaste managementEngineeringMetallurgyCorrosionNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) has approved several extended power uprates (EPU) for Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs). In some of the BWRs, operating at the higher EPU power levels and flow rates led to high-cycle fatigue damage of Steam Dryers, including the generation of loose parts. Since those failures occurred, all BWR owners proposing EPUs have been required by the USNRC to ensure that the steam dryers would not experience high-cycle fatigue cracking. This paper provides an overview of BWR steam dryer design; the fatigue failures that occurred at the Quad Cities (QC) nuclear power plants and their root causes; a brief history of BWR EPUs; and a discussion of steam dryer modifications/replacements, alternating stress mechanisms on steam dryers, and structural integrity evaluation methods (static and alternating stress).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.262 · 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