MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239693983 · doi:10.2172/859105

A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Executive Summary

2003· report· en· W4239693983 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGraphite, nuclear technology, radiation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlutoniumAtomic energyNuclear materialNuclear fuelEnriched uraniumNuclear weaponUraniumAgency (philosophy)Nuclear engineeringNuclear fuel cycleEngineeringEnvironmental scienceWaste managementSystems engineeringRadioactive wasteChemistryNuclear physicsRadiochemistryNuclear chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To meet future energy needs, ten countries--Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of South Africa, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States--have agreed on a framework for international cooperation in research for an advanced generation of nuclear energy systems, known as Generation IV. These ten countries have joined together to form the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) to develop future-generation nuclear energy systems that can be licensed, constructed, and operated in a manner that will provide competitively priced and reliable energy products while satisfactorily addressing nuclear safety, waste, proliferation, and public perception concerns. The objective for Generation IV nuclear energy systems is to be available for international deployment before the year 2030, when many of the world's currently operating nuclear power plants will be at or near the end of their operating licenses.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.013

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations14
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGraphite, nuclear technology, radiation studiesFrench-language works237,207