MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387074200 · doi:10.2172/2001492

Status of PyGriffin Development for Integration into the NEAMS Workbench

2023· report· en· W4387074200 on OpenAlexaff
K. Kiesling, S. Kumar, Nicolas Stauff, Patrick Shriwise

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsCascades (Canada)
FundersOak Ridge National LaboratoryArgonne National LaboratoryUniversity of ChicagoU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsWorkbenchSoftware engineeringBenchmark (surveying)DocumentationInterface (matter)Computer scienceSystems engineeringUser interfaceSoftwareSolverOperating systemEngineeringProgramming languageVisualization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integration of Griffin into Workbench, by way of the PyGriffin code package, was initiated by the Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) program in FY-2022.PyGriffin was developed as a Python wrapper to Griffin to streamline the complex workflow involving mesh, cross section, and Griffin input generation, code execution, and results postprocessing, by improving user experience with high fidelity neutronics analysis through the Workbench GUI interface.PyGriffin can be used as a standalone application or through the PyARC code suite.FY-2023 saw the continued development of PyGriffin to expand its capabilities including advanced post-processing of simulation results and initial development of the Monte Carlo (MC) cross section generation workflow with the Shift MC code.PyGriffin was also approved for open-source software status in FY-2023, initiating plans to move the code repository into an open location.In addition to PyGriffin development, there were many improvements and developments made in PyARC leading to several software releases (latest version is v2.3.0), but the focus of this report is PyGriffin.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207