MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3217236988 · doi:10.3390/jne2040034

A Rate Theory Model of Radiation-Induced Swelling in an Austenitic Stainless Steel

2021· article· en· W3217236988 on OpenAlexaff
M. Griffiths, Juan Ramos-Nervi, L.R. Greenwood

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrostructureSwellingVoid (composites)Materials scienceDislocationAusteniteIrradiationCrackingThermodynamicsComposite materialPhysicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many rate theory models of cavity (void) swelling have been published over the past 50 years, all having the same, or similar, structures. A rigorous validation of the models has not been possible because of the dearth of information concerning the microstructures that correspond with the swelling data. Whereas the lack of microstructure information is still an issue for historical swelling data, in the past 10–20 years data have been published on the evolution of the microstructure (point defect yields from collision cascades, cavity number densities, and dislocation densities/yield strengths) allowing certain gaps in information to be filled when considering historic swelling data. With reasonable estimates of key microstructure parameters, a standard rate theory model can be applied, and the model parameter space explored, in connection with historical swelling data. By using published data on: (i) yield strength as a function of dose and temperature (to establish an empirical expression for dislocation density evolution); (ii) cavity number densities as a function of temperature; and (iii) freely migrating defect (FMD) production as a function of primary knock-on atom (PKA) spectrum, the necessary parameter and microstructure inputs that were previously unknown can be used in model development. This paper describes a rate-theory model for void swelling of 316 stainless steel irradiated in the EBR-2 reactor as a function of irradiation temperature and neutron dose.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear EngineeringSame topicNuclear Materials and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207