MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089561270 · doi:10.2172/1665841

Flexible Nuclear Energy for Clean Energy Systems

2020· report· en· W3089561270 on OpenAlexaff
Shannon Bragg‐Sitton, John M. Gorman, Gordon Burton, Megan Moore, Ali A. Siddiqui, Takeshi Nagasawa, Hideki Kamide, Taiju Shibata, Shirõ Arai, K.J. Araj, Edwin Chesire, Tim Stone, Philip Rogers, Gareth Peel, Michel Berthélemy, Peter Fraser, Brent Wanner, Claudia Pavarini, Victoria Alexeeva, Bradley Marco, C. Hill, Ness Kilic, Ki Seob Sim, Stefano Monti, A. van Heek, Sama Bilbao-Y-Leon, Agneta Rising, Stéphane Feutry, Antoine Herzog, David Throne, Maria Korsnick, Konor Frick, Henri Paillere, Charles Forsberg, Caroline Hughes, Maxwell Brown, Akira Omoto

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIntegrated Energy Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClean energyEnergy (signal processing)Nuclear engineeringEnvironmental sciencePhysicsEngineeringEnvironmental protection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of the Nuclear Innovation: Clean Energy Future initiative, this report describes flexibility in nuclear systems, the value it can bring, and international experiences surrounding flexible nuclear energy. Flexible nuclear energy for this report is defined as “The ability of nuclear energy generation to economically provide energy services at the time and location they are needed by end-users. These energy services can include both electric and non-electric applications utilizing both traditional nuclear power plants and advanced integrated systems.” Flexibility in nuclear systems is enabled by three main mechanisms: core ramping, integrated energy systems with multiple byproducts, and thermal storage. The value of this flexibility on a $\$$/MW and a $\$$/MWh basis can be estimated through a combination of physics and economics modeling. International agencies describe their experiences in operating flexible nuclear systems and describe their plans for increasing nuclear flexibility in a clean energy system, likely with a high penetration of variable renewable energy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.003

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIntegrated Energy Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207