Global developments in advanced reactor technologies and international cooperation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been broadly two waves of nuclear reactor technology developments. The first wave is the construction of the exploratory Generation I and early Generation II reactors in Canada, Russia, the USA, and Western Europe. The second wave is the rapid scale-up of commercially proven Generation II reactors in North America and Western Europe followed by technology transfer to East Asia after the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents. As of today, majority of the reactors in commercial operation belong to the Generation II designs. We are in the third wave which is the development of Generation III and III+ reactors post-Fukushima. The objectives of Generation III/III+ reactors are radically enhanced safety and improved economics. The third wave also saw the emergence of East Asian vendors from Japan, South Korea, and China offering indigenous reactors to the global market. Parallel to the developments in the third wave, the nuclear industry seems to have also ventured into the fourth wave, which is the development and early demonstration of Generation IV reactors. Through a review of historical developments in nuclear energy worldwide, this paper provides a perspective of future reactor technology and market developments with a view of the changing dynamics in technology and the global market developments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".