MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794503169 · doi:10.1115/1.4039778

A Thoria and Thorium Uranium Dioxide Nuclear Fuel Performance Model Prototype and Knowledge Gap Assessment

2018· article· en· W2794503169 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. Stuart Bell, Paul K. Chan, Andrew A. Prudil

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear engineeringPlutoniumNuclear fuelThorium fuel cycleUraniumUranium dioxideThoriumEnvironmental scienceMOX fuelSpent nuclear fuelMaterials scienceWaste managementNuclear chemistryEngineeringChemistryMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thorium-based fuel cycles can improve fuel sustainability within the nuclear power industry. The Canadian supercritical water-cooled reactor (SCWR) concept uses this path to achieve the sustainability requirement of the Gen-IV Forum. The study of thorium dioxide/thoria ThO2-based fuel irradiation behavior is significantly less advanced than that of uranium dioxide (UO2) fuel, although ThO2 possesses superior thermal conductivity, thermal expansion, higher melting temperature, and oxidation resistance that may improve both fuel performance and safety. The fuel and sheath modeling tool (FAST), a fuel performance model for UO2 fuel, was developed at the Royal Military College of Canada (RMCC). FAST capability has been extended to include thoria (ThO2), thorium uranium dioxide (Th,U)O2, and thorium plutonium dioxide (Th,Pu)O2 as fuel pellet materials, to aid in designing and performance assessment of Th-based fuels, including SCWR (Th,Pu)O2 fuel. The development and integration of ThO2 and (Th,U)O2 models into the existing FAST model led to the multipellet material FAST (MPM-FAST). Model development was performed in collaboration between RMCC and Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL). This paper presents an outline of the ThO2 and (Th,U)O2 MPM-FAST model, a comparison between modeling results with postirradiation examination (PIE) data from a test conducted at CNL, and an account of the knowledge gap between our ability to model ThO2 and (Th,U)O2 fuel compared to UO2. Results are encouraging when compared to PIE data.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation ScienceSame topicNuclear Materials and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207