MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Multivariate Image Analysis for Core Monitoring in PWRs

2023· article· en· W4389223565 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Y.M. Mohsen, Tarek F. Nagla, Mohamed Elsamahy, Mohamed A.E. Abdel‐Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear Physics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl rodPressurized water reactorPrincipal component analysisResearch reactorComputer scienceNuclear engineeringBenchmark (surveying)SoftwareCoolantMultivariate statisticsNeutron fluxNeutronData miningArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMechanical engineeringMachine learningPhysicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In pressurized water reactor (PWR) it is crucial for the operator to monitor the reactor parameters at the same time, such as temperature, pressure, boron concentration, control rod position, coolant density, etc., in order to make proper decision. However, the huge size of data reading from the different instrumentations, in addition to the limited human ability to visually detect, interpret, assess add a lot of uncertainty to the operator qualitative and quantitative analysis of the reactor performance. Therefore, this paper proposes the utilization of radial thermal flux maps (Neutron Images) technique, positioned on the reactor core as a sensitive monitoring technique for all changes of the reactor parameters as a result of the position of the control rods changing. Hence, the features contained in these neutron images are extracted (Multivariate image analysis and regression) via Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and Cluster Analysis (Dendrogram). To determine the effectiveness of the suggested technique in determining the location of the control-rods, several simulations are run. The 3D TRITON FORTRAN-code was utilized to simulate the radial thermal neutron flux of the Westinghouse 2775-MWth PWR benchmark at 100% thermal power generation. The SIMCA software programme is used to develop, test, and generalise the PCA model. Additionally, clustering analysis (CA) is carried out using the statistics software programme Minitab in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the suggested method.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicNuclear Physics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207