MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W329616555

Comparative Study on the Technical Standards for the In-Service Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components in Several Countries

2004· article· en· W329616555 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ho‐Sang Shin, Kyung‐Jo Kim, Changheui Jang, Suk-Chull Kang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Korean Society for Nondestructive Testing · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Technical standardService (business)Nuclear power plantRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringForensic engineeringNuclear powerComputer securityTransport engineeringComputer scienceLawBusinessPolitical scienceMarketing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In each country, the periodic ISI(In-Service Inspection) is required by the law to protect the public health and property from the potential accident of the nuclear facilities. To support the implementation of ISI program, the prescriptive ISI technical standards have been established. As the key parts of the ISI program, the non-destructive examination techniques are widely used to identify the degree of degradation of the pressure boundary components and welds. Recently, the risk informed-ISI program has been developed and implemented in several countries. Nonetheless, the existing ISI program which prescriptively decides the scope of inspection still has its own significance. In this article, the technical standards of ISI in leading countries like US, france, Canada, and Japan are reviewed and compared with the safety guide by IAEA. An outline to revise the domestic technical standards of ISI has been suggested.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.231 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Korean Society for Nondestructive TestingSame topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207