The Other Metallic Phase in Spent Nuclear Fuel: A Complete Thermodynamic Evaluation of the U–Pd–Rh–Ru System
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During burnup of nuclear fuel, fission products accumulate. Post-irradiation examination of burned up nuclear fuel has revealed the presence of several phases, namely, the fuel matrix of UO2, with dissolved oxides present; a white metallic phase consisting of the so-called “noble metals” (i.e., Mo–Ru–Pd–Rh–Tc); a gray oxide phase consisting of alkali or alkaline earth oxides (e.g., BaZrO3 or Cs2UO4); and an another metallic inclusion containing a mixture of UPd3–URh3–URu3, which is not completely assessed due to the lack of phase diagrams of the UPd3–URh3, URh3–URu3, and UPd3–URu3. Understanding how these phases behave becomes especially important from a safety perspective, if one considers a potential accident scenario. The quaternary system U–Pd–Rh–Ru has been evaluated and a thermodynamic model has been developed by first considering the six binary subsystems and the four ternary subsystems. A critical examination of the U–Pd, U–Rh, and U–Ru experimental phase diagrams has been made, with attention placed on both the solution phases, generally present on the uranium side of the diagrams and the UPd3–URh3–URu3 compounds. Finally, the implications of this new model and its potential refinements of the Royal Military College of Canada nuclear fuel treatment developed by previous authors (notably the RMCC group under Thompson and Lewis) will be explored.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it