MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999349148 · doi:10.12943/cnr.2019.00007

BURFEL BIAS AND MCNP BENCHMARKING BURFEL CALCULATIONS OF NRU LOOP FUEL

2020· article· en· W2999349148 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Thai Sinh Nguyen, Xiaolin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueCNL Nuclear Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurnupBenchmarkingNuclear engineeringMonte Carlo methodNuclear physicsPhysicsStatistical physicsComputer scienceEngineeringStatisticsMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Burnup of Fuel Elements (BURFEL) code system has been used to calculate powers and burnups for experimental fuel irradiated in the National Research Universal Reactor (NRU) loops. BURFEL-calculated burnups, based on the calorimetrically measured loop powers, have been observed to exhibit biases with respect to their chemically measured counterparts. A high-fidelity Monte Carlo N-Particle method involving the NRU full-core model has been used for benchmarking BURFEL calculations, resulting in similar biases attributed to uncertainties in the loop powers. This study provides quantitative insights into the observed BURFEL biases for the purpose of possibly correcting existing loop fuel irradiation data for such biases.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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