MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094077452 · doi:10.1115/icone2020-16935

Considerations for Development of Probabilistic Assessments for Nuclear Systems and Components

2020· article· en· W3094077452 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mahesh D. Pandey, Bogdan Wasiluk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Safety CommissionUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbabilistic logicProbabilistic risk assessmentReliability (semiconductor)Metric (unit)Margin (machine learning)Risk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceReliability engineeringRisk assessmentEngineeringMachine learningArtificial intelligenceComputer securityOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The risk-informed approach has been increasingly utilized by the nuclear industry and the regulators in Canada and around the world. This involves the assessment of plant risk and the considerations for defence-in-depth, safety margin and other nuclear safety principles. The estimates of reliability metric have been commonly obtained using probabilistic methods that involve distributed inputs. While the engineering focus has typically been on finding a solution for a specific problem, the scientific community and the regulators are concerned with generic principles, foundation of probabilistic approaches and definition of reliability metric used in the assessment. In this paper, the concept of a time-dependent reliability framework is discussed to facilitate selecting the appropriate approach to meet, in principle, the assessment intent. In the end, any probabilistic assessment should be fundamentally meaningful, consistent and transparent to inspire confidence in the public and the regulators.

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)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.119
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.119
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.337
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.080 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207