MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2960904787 · doi:10.12943/anr.2013.00004

Analytical Representation Of ZED-2 Reactor Geometry by Means of The R-Function Method

2013· article· en· W2960904787 on OpenAlexaffvenue
D.V. Altiparmakov

Bibliographic record

VenueAECL Nuclear Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDifferentiable functionDomain (mathematical analysis)Function (biology)Mathematical analysisMathematicsBoundary (topology)Series (stratigraphy)GridRepresentation (politics)Boundary value problemDistribution (mathematics)Taylor seriesFlux (metallurgy)Neutron transportBasis functionGeometryNeutronPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The R-function method is applied to model the geometry of the critical facility ZED-2 as an illustrative example. Each material region is represented by a real, continuous and differentiable function of spatial coordinates that is referred to as the domain function. Instead of using particular functions for individual elements, a single function is constructed to represent all spatial domains that contain the same material, for instance all fuel pins, etc. Owing to continuity and differentiability, the domain functions can be used to construct a basis for approximate solution of the related boundary-value problems. A study of the approximation ability of the domain functions is carried out using the two-group spatial neutron flux distribution in the ZED-2 facility as a model problem. The least squares method is used to determine the unknown coefficients by minimizing the discrepancy between the reference MCNP solution and a power series of domain functions. The results show that a modest number of terms in the series is able to produce a good approximation of the neutron flux distribution specified on a mesh grid of 500 x 500 points.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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