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 OpenAlexaffabout
B. Rouben, Eleodor Nichita

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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

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
GenreEmpirical

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 venueNuclear TechnologySame topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207