Thorium-based CANDU qualification as plutonium burner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Converting the weapon grade Plutonium from the U.S.A., Russia, U.K. etc. to Mixed OXide fuel and using it in power reactors was seen as a feasible way to both dispose Plutonium and produce energy. Using Thorium-based fuels in CANDU has been investigated since early 1980’s, they were designed and tested in Canada as mixed ThO2 -UO 2 (both LEU and HEU) and mixed ThO2 -PuO 2, (both reactor- and weapons-grade) ([1]). In this respect, Thorium might also be seen as a valuable driver for weapon grade Plutonium annihilation. Our goal was to investigate ThO2 -PuO 2 MOX in the aim to propose a suitable fuel for the existing and future CANDU units in Romania. Both weapon grade and reactor grade Plutonium were considered as fissile drivers for Thorium. Since this is only an exploratory study, some key design parameters such as fuel pellet density and ThO2 /PuO 2 ratio were considered to span over a certain range imposed by MOX fuel fabrication technology and limited Plutonium availability. Eighteen fuel compositions were considered and cell calculations were performed for 37 and 43-element bundles using several computer codes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".