MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366221529 · doi:10.3390/en16083468

Small Modular Reactor Deployment and Obstacles to Be Overcome

2023· article· en· W4366221529 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

VenueEnergies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRisk Perception and Management
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware deploymentModular designEnergy securityNuclear powerProcess (computing)Identification (biology)BusinessEnvironmental economicsRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceEngineeringEconomicsRenewable energy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To meet climate policy goals, it will be necessary to deploy a series of low-carbon energy technologies, including nuclear power. The small modular reactor (SMR) can potentially support climate change mitigation and energy security issues. Small modular reactors (SMRs) are gaining popularity; however, one crucial debate is whether SMRs can compete economically with conventional nuclear reactors or not. From a commercial point of view, SMRs will be able to provide process heat in various industrial applications, replace older nuclear, natural gas, and coal power facilities, and serve smaller energy markets with less established infrastructure. Realizing these advantages would rely heavily on the near-term quick up-scaling of SMRs; this paper, then, examines and identifies some of the most hindering constraints and barriers for the quick deployment of SMR such as the technology choice, licensing, economy of scale and financing, public acceptance, supply chain, and proliferation. A clear identification of the evident and more hidden bottlenecks preventing a quick deployment is made putting in evidence areas in need of much deeper analysis than the one conducted by the SMR community so far.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.233 · 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