MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3117807085 · doi:10.1080/00295450.2020.1827884

On the Amount of Moderation in the CANDU Lattice

2020· article· en· W3117807085 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Technology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLattice (music)Heavy waterLattice constantCoolantDeuteriumModerationUraniumNuclear engineeringPhysicsNuclear physicsMaterials scienceMathematicsStatisticsEngineeringOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Throughout the years, various reports and training manuals on CANada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) reactors have mentioned that the CANDU lattice is overmoderated. Overmoderation is not always defined in such documents but often appears associated with the positive void reactivity of the CANDU lattice. Some documents refer, logically, to overmoderation as meaning that the lattice pitch is larger than the pitch that maximizes the infinite-lattice multiplication constant but do not demonstrate this is the case for CANDU. We demonstrate that in fact, the CANDU lattice is undermoderated; that is, the current 28.575-cm lattice pitch is smaller than the pitch for which the infinite-lattice multiplication constant reaches its maximum. We hypothesize that the misconception of CANDU overmoderation may have originated from attributing the CANDU positive void reactivity to too much moderator by incorrectly equating the effect of losing heavy water coolant with the effect of losing heavy water moderator.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.162 · 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