MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3132300242

ПОРІВНЯЛЬНИЙ АНАЛІЗ ДІЯЛЬНОСТІ ПІДПРИЄМСТВ АТОМНОЇ ЕНЕРГЕТИКИ УКРАЇНИ, США, ФРАНЦІЇ ТА КАНАДИ

2017· article· uk· W3132300242 on OpenAlex
О. О. Корогодова, І. І. Прочан

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueПідприємництво та інновації · 2017
Typearticle
Languageuk
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGraphite, nuclear technology, radiation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaggingAtomic energyNuclear powerEnergy securityEnergy independenceBusinessAgency (philosophy)ProductivityPolitical scienceEconomic growthEngineeringEconomicsRenewable energy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article provides recommendations for the development and increasing of productivity of nuclear power engineering enterprises in Ukraine. In order to achieve this goal, the nuclear power industry of the four leading countries was analyzed: USA, France, Canada and Ukraine. The research on different indicators was conducted. The main reasons of the lagging of Ukraine in the industry are determined. The recommendations for further development of the nuclear power industry are given.Also the estimation of the main stages of the history of development of the world industry of atomic energy is given in the article. The factors of deceleration of the nuclear energy development in the world and in Ukraine are outlined. The problematic issues of the necessity of security priorities observance and economic independence strengthening of Ukraine, compliance with the main requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency and other specialized organizations, institutions and associations are highlighted.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0080.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.023

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.276 · 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