Intercomparisonn of Techniques for Pressure Tube Inspection of Pressurized heavy Water Reactor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the analysis results of a series f Round-Robin test that was performed to intercompare inspection and diagnosis techniques for characterization of pressure tube f a pressurized heavy water reactor under the Coordinated Research Project(CRP) of IAEA's nuclear Power Programme. For this test, six nations, Korea, Canada, India, Argentina, Rumania, and China that currently have pressurized heavy water reactors under operation involved, and the KOR-1 pressure tube sample prepared by Korea was used. Two kinds of NDE technique, ultrasonic and eddy current test, were applied for these tests. The KOR-1 pressure tube sample contains total 12 artificial flaws such as crack-like EDM notches, wear that is similar to the real flaws and can be produced on the pressure tubes during plant operation. Test results showed that seven laboratories from six nations detected all twelve flaws in KOR-1 specimen by using ultrasonic and eddy current test methods, and ultrasonic test method was more accurate than eddy current test method in flaw detectin and sizing. ID flaws in pressure tube sample were more easily detected and accurately sized than OD flaws.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".