MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403449773 · doi:10.1080/00295450.2024.2409589

A Review of the Capabilities and Gaps in Canada’s Research Reactors for Facilitating the Development and Deployment of Small Modular Reactors

2024· review· en· W4403449773 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Technology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware deploymentModular designNuclear engineeringResearch reactorComputer scienceSystems engineeringBusinessEngineeringNuclear physicsOperating systemPhysicsNeutron

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With an interest in reducing carbon emissions, Canada has committed to deploying a variety of small modular reactor (SMR) designs. This review covers Canada’s research reactor capabilities relevant to SMR development and highlights gaps in these capabilities. Following the commissioning of the subcritical facility at Ontario Tech University, Canada’s capabilities in reactor physics, education, and training will be relatively sufficient. In contrast, materials/fuel irradiation capabilities and neutron scattering techniques are insufficient, with a notable gap in in-reactor test loops needed to develop new fuels. Recommendations are made for a new multipurpose research reactor (MPRR) development and deployment of SMRs in the long term while increasing accessibility to Canada’s existing research reactors in the near term, particularly in Western Canada.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.234 · 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