MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158341368 · doi:10.2172/1780694

U.S. Industry Opportunities for Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Phase II (Final Report)

2021· report· en· W3158341368 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James Burelbach, Matt Kennedy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Atomic Energy AgencyBattelleU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsNuclear fission productNuclear engineeringFission productsPipingLight-water reactorScope (computer science)Environmental scienceContainment (computer programming)Radioactive wasteThermonuclear fusionWaste managementEngineeringProcess engineeringComputer scienceNuclear physicsEnvironmental engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This limited scope study aims at preserving the results of experimental programs for the safety of light water cooled and advanced reactors by locating and documenting, to the extent possible, where the experimental test information for these programs has been archived. The Light Water Reactor Data Preservation Activity Team initially identified seven (7) experimental programs, exceeding the required five (5) in the scope of work, which were determined to be “at risk” of potentially losing valuable data. The seven (7) experimental programs/subject areas identified are (descriptions of each experiment/experience are provided in Section 3.0): 1. FERMI-1 Reactor Accident 2. Fission Product Behavior During the In-Pile Severe Fuel Damage Test SFD I-4 3. Containment Iodine Computer Code Exercise Based on Radioiodine Test Facility (RTF) Experiment 4. Wide Range Piping Integrity Demonstration (WIND) Project 5. Iodine Chemical Research in Canada 6. High Temperature Fission Product Chemistry and Transport in Steam 7. Anything related to radioactive Methyl Iodide.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Materials and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207