MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917152834 · doi:10.2172/1341824

FY2016 Ceramic Fuels Development Annual Highlights

2017· report· en· W2917152834 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kenneth J. McClellan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLos Alamos National LaboratoryNational Nuclear Security AdministrationCanadian Foundation for Dietetic ResearchU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsBurnupCeramicEngineeringWaste managementEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceNuclear engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key challenges for the Advanced Fuels Campaign are the development of fuel technologies to enable major increases in fuel performance (safety, reliability, power and burnup) beyond current technologies, and development of characterization methods and predictive fuel performance models to enable more efficient development and licensing of advanced fuels. Ceramic fuel development activities for fiscal year 2016 fell within the areas of 1) National and International Technical Integration, 2) Advanced Accident Tolerant Ceramic Fuel Development, 3) Advanced Techniques and Reference Materials Development, and 4) Fabrication of Enriched Ceramic Fuels. High uranium density fuels were the focus of the ceramic fuels efforts. Accomplishments for FY16 primarily reflect the prioritization of identification and assessment of new ceramic fuels for light water reactors which have enhanced accident tolerance while also maintaining or improving normal operation performance, and exploration of advanced post irradiation examination techniques which will support more efficient testing and qualification of new fuel systems.

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), Insufficient 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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.150
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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.010

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.235 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Materials and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207