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 OpenAlexaff
Elaheh Shobeiri, Filippo Genco, Daniel Hoornweg, Akira Tokuhiro

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.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.004

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

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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations37
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicRisk Perception and ManagementFrench-language works237,207