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 OpenAlexaffvenue
Mohammed Alqahtani, Simon Day, A. Buijs

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 keff and (ii) U-235 fuel inventory. The latter is compared with a simple first-order semi-empirical calculation. The calculation of keff 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.

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)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
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)0.0100.003

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

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
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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