MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3131803749 · doi:10.1051/epjconf/202124706005

AN IMPROVED DOUBLE HETEROGENEITY MODEL FOR PEBBLE-BED REACTORS IN DRAGON-5

2021· article· en· W3131803749 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Chambon, Ding She, Alain Hébert

Bibliographic record

VenueEPJ Web of Conferences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPebbleConstant (computer programming)Work (physics)Fraction (chemistry)CollisionStatistical physicsGraphiteMechanicsLattice (music)Computer scienceNuclear engineeringPhysicsMaterials scienceGeologyEngineeringThermodynamicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In pebble-bed reactors, the fuel is contained in small grains, which are included in a graphite matrix. Some burnable poison particles may also be present. In this work, an additional ’double heterogeneity’ model is introduced in the DRAGON5 lattice code. The model is based on the legacy work of She (INET) and has been improved to overcome intrinsic limitations. It is based on a simplified physical model whereas the two already existing models were based on the collision probability analysis or on renewal theory. The advantage of this new model is its simplicity to implement. The theory shows that the correction suggested in the original model should not be arbitrary, but a constant equivalent particle fraction of 0.63. Numerical comparison between the models is generally good. However it does not support the theory of a constant equivalent fraction. Additional work is needed to reduce the discrepancy between the models in some cases.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPJ Web of ConferencesSame topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207