MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036192563 · doi:10.12943/cnr.2019.00011

OSCAR-4 CODE SYSTEM COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS WITH A FIRST-ORDER SEMI-EMPIRICAL METHOD FOR CORE-FOLLOW DEPLETION CALCULATION IN MNR

2020· article· en· W3036192563 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCNL Nuclear Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCore (optical fiber)Code (set theory)Multiplication (music)Nuclear engineeringNuclear reactor coreOrder (exchange)Environmental scienceComputer scienceMathematicsReliability engineeringStatisticsEngineeringCombinatoricsTelecommunicationsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge of the isotopic composition of a nuclear reactor core is important for accurate core-follow and reload analysis. In the McMaster Nuclear Reactor, fuel depletion estimates are based upon a semi-empirical calculation using flux-wire measurements. These estimates are used to plan and guide fuelling operations. To further support operations, an OSCAR-4 model is being developed. To evaluate the performance of the OSCAR-4 code for this application, 2 points of comparison, considering the period between 2007 and 2010, are presented: (i) the multiplication factor k eff and (ii) U-235 fuel inventory. The latter is compared with a simple first-order semi-empirical calculation. The calculation of k eff for the last operational 3 months yields 0.997 ± 0.002 (vs. 1.000 for an operating reactor), and differences in both core-average inventory and the maximum standard fuel assembly inventories estimates are found to be 5.7% and 7.5%, respectively.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.249 · 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