MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation framework for molten salt reactors and other new nuclear power reactor systems

2024· article· en· W4402695877 on OpenAlex
Elliott J.T. Berg, A. Buijs

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Engineering and Design · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersUniversity Network of Excellence in Nuclear EngineeringMcMaster University
KeywordsNuclear engineeringNuclear powerMolten saltNuclear reactorMaterials scienceLiquid fluoride thorium reactorMolten salt reactorWaste managementEngineeringMetallurgyNuclear physicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years there has been a serious effort throughout many nations to advance new nuclear power reactor designs for commercial deployment. There are many competing technologies classes and specific designs among the technologies. The primary objective of this study is to provide a framework to evaluate and ultimately optimize reactor designs, on a cost basis. Although the framework is generally technology independent, it is presented as it pertains to one particular reactor type, Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs). For MSRs the framework provides the basis from which to optimize both the salt composition and key geometric parameters . It is broad in scope and is therefore divided into several metrics of performance, direct cost, waste, safety, proliferation, modularity and feasibility (technical difficulty). This novel framework relates reactor design/construction conditions as well as specific configuration parameters to cost, thereby enriching understanding of the costs and trade-offs associated with numerous design characteristics.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.205 · 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