MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801089249 · doi:10.1002/9781119494096.ch26

Nuclear Fuel Modelling and Perspectives on Canadian Efforts in Fuel Development

2018· other· en· W2801089249 on OpenAlexafffundabout
M.H.A. Piro, Andrew A. Prudil, M. J. Welland, W.R. Richmond, A. Bergeron, E. Torres, Christopher I. Maxwell, Jeremy Pencer, Nigel Harrison, M. Floyd

Bibliographic record

VenueCeramic transactions /Ceramic transactions · 2018
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear LaboratoriesOntario Tech University
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsNuclear fuelNuclear engineeringCeramicScale (ratio)Nuclear reactorUraniumStructural materialMaterials scienceEngineeringPhysicsMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter discusses how computational efforts span the entire multi-scale multi-physics spectrum, ranging from atomistic electronic structure and classical inter-atomic potential calculations, to meso-scale simulations of micro-structural evolution, to continuum scale thermo-mechanical simulations of fuel performance. A variety of scientific disciplines must be understood in regards to nuclear fuel behavior, including heat transfer, structural and fracture mechanics, thermodynamics, materials science, and reactor physics. A great difficulty in capturing the interdependencies of the foregoing mechanisms is that it is impossible to reproduce the conditions inside of a nuclear reactor in the laboratory. Canadian interests in nuclear fuel research and development have been mainly focused on uranium dioxide ceramic fuels, which are used in CANDU nuclear generating stations, and to a lesser extent in metallic dispersion fuels, which are used in research and test reactors.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCeramic transactions /Ceramic transactionsSame topicNuclear Materials and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207