MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391430621 · doi:10.1080/00295450.2023.2274690

Comments on the Frisch-Peierls Estimate of the Critical Mass of a Uranium Fission Bomb

2024· article· en· W4391430621 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

VenueNuclear Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGraphite, nuclear technology, radiation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFissionUraniumCritical mass (sociodynamics)Nuclear physicsNuclear fissionUranium-235Fission productsManhattan projectFission product yieldPhysicsNuclear weaponNeutron

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Frisch-Peierls memorandum of March 1940 opened the way to nuclear weapons through its conclusion that the critical mass for an explosive chain reaction in 235U could be as small as 0.6 kg. This gross underestimate was based on the conjecture that the cross section for the fission of 235U with fast neutrons was 10 barns. Though this value turned out to be far too high, it is argued here that the choice made was not unreasonable at the time.

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)0.001
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 score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.271 · 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