MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899644744

TRITIUM PERMEATION CHARACTERIZATION OF MATERIALS FOR FUSION AND GENERATION IV VERY HIGH TEMPERATURE REACTORS

2016· article· en· W2899644744 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S. N. Thomson, S. Suppiah, K. McCrimmon, Melissa Byers, I. Castillo, K. Pilatzke, Donald Ryland

Bibliographic record

VenueCNL Nuclear Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicFusion materials and technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermeationBlanketTritiumMaterials scienceFusion powerNuclear engineeringHeat exchangerFusionHydrogenMetallurgyChemistryComposite materialNuclear physicsMechanical engineeringPlasmaEngineeringMembrane
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper summarizes the experimental tritium permeation rates of various barrier materials considered for fusion and Generation IV applications in the temperature range of 600–1000 °C.Determination of accurate permeation rates is important to design and engineer safe systems that are used in fusion reactors and in very high temperature reactors (VHTRs) of Generation IV. For fusion reactors, tritium permeation in the blanket region and fuel reprocessing area can contribute to loss of fusion fuel, environmental emissions, and worker dose. For VHTRs, tritium permeation in the main core and the intermediate heat exchangers can result in tritium contamination of the hydrogen production process.Testing is performed in a sample configuration that closely resembles the geometry of a tube-in-tube heat exchanger and the permeation rates are measured at high temperatures (500–1000 °C) using an induction heater. A permeation test is conducted with a thin-walled test strip welded in between stainless steel 304L heav...

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.234
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCNL Nuclear ReviewSame topicFusion materials and technologiesFrench-language works237,207