MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965635668 · doi:10.12943/cnr.2019.00004

CANDU FIRE LOAD DENSITIES IN CANADIAN NUCLEAR PLANTS

2019· article· en· W2965635668 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Hossam Shalabi, George Hadjisophocleous

Bibliographic record

VenueCNL Nuclear Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIgnition systemEnvironmental scienceNuclear engineeringForensic engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fuel survey was carried out at all operating CANDU reactors in Canada in 5 sites (Bruce A, Bruce B, Darlington, Pickering, and Point Lepreau). The survey used the National Fire Protection Association 557 combination method for the fire zones that contain fire safe shutdown analysis equipment. A fire zone group list for the sites was developed to combine fire zones with similar functions; 38 fire zone groups were produced from this exercise. The results of the survey show that the average fuel load density for all 1230 fire zones is 170.1 MJ/m 2 , and the average fuel load is 79 183 MJ. The maximum fuel load density is 1319 MJ/m 2 , and the maximum fuel load is 2 785 404 MJ. High-energy arcing faults risk was found in 254 fire zones out of the 1230 fire zones. Electric fault is the highest ignition source risk present in all 1230 fire zones.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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)0.0100.017

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.277 · 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
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
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCNL Nuclear ReviewSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207