MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956415886 · doi:10.12943/anr.2012.00004

Nuclear Data and the Effect of Gadolinium in the Moderator

2012· article· en· W2956415886 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jimmy Chow, F.P. Adams, D. Roubstov, Rajindervir Singh, M.B. Zeller

Bibliographic record

VenueAECL Nuclear Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGadoliniumNeutron captureNuclear physicsNuclear dataNeutronBoronRadiochemistryNeutron temperatureNeutron cross sectionReactivity (psychology)ChemistryDeuteriumNuclear engineeringMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent cross-section measurements on gadolinium have raised concerns over the accuracy of moderator poison reactivity coefficient calculations. Measurements have been made at the ZED-2 (Zero Energy Deuterium) critical facility, Chalk River Laboratories, AECL, to study the reactivity effect of gadolinium in the moderator. Since the neutron capture cross-section of boron is well known, measurements were also made with boron to provide calibration data for measurements with gadolinium. The measurements have been used to quantify the bias of the reactivity effect in full-core simulations of ZED-2 using MCNP, a neutron transport code used extensively for simulations of nuclear systems, along with the ENDF/B-VII.0 cross-section data. The results showed a bias of -0.41 ± 0.07 mk/ ppm, or -2.1% ± 0.3%, given a reactivity worth of -20.1 mk/ppm for gadolinium. Additional simulations also show that the gadolinium neutron capture cross-section has been over-corrected, relative to previous evaluations, in a beta version of ENDF/B VII.1, which incorporates the Leinweber 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAECL Nuclear ReviewSame topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207