MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365147995 · doi:10.3390/s23083907

Auto Sizing of CANDU Nuclear Reactor Fuel Channel Flaws from UT Scans

2023· article· en· W4365147995 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Issam Hammad, Matthew Poloni, Andrew Isherwood, Ryan Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsOntario Power GenerationDalhousie University
FundersOntario Power Generation
KeywordsSizingNuclear power plantProcess (computing)Channel (broadcasting)Nuclear fuelNuclear engineeringSpent nuclear fuelComputer scienceUraniumEngineeringMaterials scienceElectrical engineeringChemistryNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inspection of nuclear power plants is an essential process that occurs during plant outages. During this process, various systems are inspected, including the reactor’s fuel channels to ensure that they are safe and reliable for the plant’s operation. The inspection of Canada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU®) reactor pressure tubes, which are the core component of the fuel channels and house the reactor fuel bundles, is performed using Ultrasonic Testing (UT). Based on the current process that is followed by Canadian nuclear operators, the UT scans are manually examined by analysts to locate, measure, and characterize pressure tube flaws. This paper proposes solutions for the auto-detection and sizing of pressure tube flaws using two deterministic algorithms, the first uses segmented linear regression, while the second uses the average time of flight (ToF) within ±σ of µ. When compared against a manual analysis stream, the linear regression algorithm and the average ToF achieved an average depth difference of 0.0180 mm and 0.0206 mm, respectively. These results are very close to the depth difference of 0.0156 mm when comparing two manual streams. Therefore, the proposed algorithms can be adopted in production, which can lead to significant cost savings in terms of time and labor.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207