MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385810225 · doi:10.1080/15361055.2023.2232227

Comparison of AWD to CECE for ITER-Scale Water Detritiation

2023· article· en· W4385810225 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

VenueFusion Science & Technology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicFusion materials and technologies
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsotope separationTritiumNuclear engineeringFuel cycleDeuteriumEnvironmental scienceHeavy waterFusion powerNuclear fusionNuclear physicsProcess engineeringIsotopePhysicsPlasmaEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tritium is used as a fuel in nuclear fusion, and water detritiation is an important part of the overall fusion fuel cycle. This paper compares two competing technologies for an ITER-scale water detritiation reactor, namely, the advanced water distillation (AWD) and combined electrolysis and catalytic exchange (CECE) processes. The processes are compared in terms of equipment size and footprint, energy demand, isotope separation characteristics, safety, and technology readiness level. An important technical concern discussed is management of deuterium accumulation since deuterium is enriched along with tritium and D-T separation is inherently more difficult than H-T separation. Interfacing with a downstream isotope separation system is also discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.315 · 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