MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790856140 · doi:10.2172/1424634

2012 Canadian RDD Field Trials: Quick Summary for DOE Modelers

2018· report· en· W2790856140 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephanie Neuscamman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExplosive materialDetonationDeposition (geology)Dispersion (optics)Nuclear engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringGeographyPhysicsArchaeologyGeologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A series of three explosive RDD experiments was conducted in 2012 by Defense Research and Development Canada (DRDC) and collaborating organizations from Canada, the US and the UK. Trial details and measurement data were provided by Lorne Erhardt of DRDC. In order to characterize the dispersion and deposition of radioactive material from an RDD, a source of La- 140 (which has a half-life of 1.6781 days) was dispersed by detonation of 0.2 kg of high explosive in each of the three tests. Measurements of the subsequent dispersion and deposition were made using multiple experimental techniques.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.288
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207