MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972797330 · doi:10.1115/1.4044750

Application of a Graded Approach to Support the National Research Universal Reactor U-2 Experimental Loop Return to Service

2019· article· en· W2972797330 on OpenAlexaffabout
Muhammad Shoaib Karam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear Engineering Thermal-Hydraulics
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear engineeringModular designLoop (graph theory)Service (business)Work (physics)Nuclear reactorResearch reactorShut downComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceNuclear physicsEngineeringMechanical engineeringPhysicsBusinessNeutronOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The National Research Universal (NRU) reactor at Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) operated safely for over 60 years and supported a wide range of applications including, testing of fuels and materials under typical power reactor conditions in two experimental loops (U-1 and U-2). Both experimental loops had been taken out of service to address seismic deficiencies. CNL applied a graded approach to successfully return one of these loops, the U-2 Loop to service. The graded approach, without compromising safety, applied a risk informed methodology commensurate to the potential risk posed by the operation of the U-2 Loop. The work enabled the U-2 Loop to resume operation until the NRU reactor was permanently shut down in Mar. 31, 2018, generating valuable data that will be used in the development of advanced nuclear fuels and materials. This paper describes the graded approach employed by CNL that supported U-2 loop return to service (RTS). The use of graded approach is articulated to support development of safety and licensing cases for small modular reactor projects.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation ScienceSame topicNuclear Engineering Thermal-HydraulicsFrench-language works237,207