MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214863725 · doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ac5a7c

Developing solid-surface plasma facing components for pilot plants and reactors with replenishable wall claddings and continuous surface conditioning. Part A: concepts and questions

2022· article· en· W4214863725 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlasma Physics and Controlled Fusion · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicFusion materials and technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersOak Ridge National Laboratory
KeywordsDivertorMaterials scienceBerylliumNuclear engineeringPlasmaTokamakFusion powerTungstenComposite materialMetallurgyNuclear physicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is estimated that pilot plants and reactors may experience rates of net erosion and deposition of solid plasma facing component (PFC) material of 10 3 –10 5 kg yr −1 . Even if the net erosion (wear) problem can be solved, the redeposition of so much material has the potential for major interference with operation, including disruptions due to so-called ‘unidentified flying objects (UFOs)’ and unsafe dust levels. The potential implications appear to be no less serious than for plasma contact with the divertor target: a dust explosion or a major UFO-disruption could be as damaging for an actively-cooled deuterium-tritium (DT) tokamak as target failure. It will therefore be necessary to manage material deposits to prevent their fouling operation. This situation appears to require a fundamental paradigm shift with regard to meeting the challenge of taming the plasma–material interface: it appears that any acceptable solid PFC material will in effect be flow-through , like liquid–metal PFCs, although at far lower mass flow rates. Solid PFC material will have to be treated as a consumable , like brake pads in cars. ITER will use high-Z (tungsten) armor on the divertor targets and low-Z (beryllium) on the main walls. The ARIES-AT reactor design calls for a similar arrangement, but with SiC cladding on the main walls. Non-metallic low-Z refractory materials such as ceramics (graphite, SiC, etc) used as in situ replenishable, relatively thin—of order mm—claddings on a substrate which is resistant to neutron damage could provide a potential solution for the main walls, while reducing the risk of degrading the confined plasma. Separately, wall conditioning has proven essential for achieving high performance. For DT devices, however, standard methods appear to be unworkable, but recently powder droppers injecting low-Z material ∼continuously into discharges have been quite effective and may be usable in DT devices as well. The resulting massive generation of low-Z debris, however, has the same potential to seriously disrupt operation as noted above. Powder droppers provide a unique opportunity to carry out controlled studies on the management of low-Z slag in all current tokamaks, independent of whether their protection tiles use low-Z or high-Z material.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.228 · 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