MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905570512 · doi:10.12943/cnr.2017.00020

CANDU FIRE PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT (PRA) MODEL

2018· article· en· W2905570512 on OpenAlex
Hossam Shalabi, George Hadjisophocleous

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCNL Nuclear Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear power plantProbabilistic risk assessmentFirefightingProbabilistic logicEngineeringRisk assessmentNuclear powerFire protectionFire safetyWork (physics)Environmental scienceForensic engineeringNuclear engineeringComputer scienceCivil engineeringComputer securityMechanical engineeringNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fire Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is being introduced to the fire protection engineering practice both locally and worldwide. The commercial nuclear power industry has also experiencing the impact of this new approach. This paper examines the work performed to assess the relative accuracy of fire models for CANDU nuclear power plant (NPP) applications. The Canadian NPP uses some portions of NUREG/CR-6850 in performing fire PRA. Canadian fire ignition frequencies have been provided by International Fire Data Exchange Project. The CANDU Fire PRA Model can quantitatively evaluate plant damage states and core damage frequencies. This model will assist fire engineers in performing CANDU Fire PRA analysis, by recognizing vulnerabilities related to fire events and will contribute to further improvement of the Canadian NPPs’ safety.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.314 · 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