MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Model to Predict Critical Heat Flux (CHF) in a CANDU Fuel Element Simulation (FES) with Various Nonuniform Axial Heat Flux Shapes and Flow Liner Creep Profiles

2024· article· en· W4405126079 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 Engineering and Design · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat transfer and supercritical fluids
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooJoseph Brant Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreepCritical heat fluxHeat fluxArtificial neural networkNuclear engineeringMaterials scienceFlux (metallurgy)Finite element methodHeat generationEngineeringMechanicsStructural engineeringMechanical engineeringHeat transferThermodynamicsComputer scienceComposite materialPhysicsMetallurgyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Conventional ANNs used in CHF prediction can potentially face overfitting issues. • Overfitting is more pronounced in the problems involving various training features. • The introduced ANN model reduced overfitting over a wide mass flux range. • Benchmark against a TensorFlow model reveals the new model’s superior robustness. • The cases with nonuniform heat flux/annulus particularly benefit from this model. A classification ANN model was developed to predict critical power in a CANDU Fuel Element Simulation (FES) with various Axial Heat Flux Distributions (AFDs) and flow liner creep profiles. The ANN model employs 29 input features to model the AFDs and liner creep profiles and was trained by 433 test data. The classification ANN model was benchmarked against a standard regression ANN model developed with TensorFlow and the results are presented in this paper. The two models delivered roughly the same level of accuracy with a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of ∼ 2.5 %; however, the methodology used in the classification model seems to be able to alleviate overfitting and create a more tangible robustness in comparison with the regression model, albeit at the cost of a longer solution time. It is therefore recommended that the presented classification model be used in conjunction with typical regression models to attain more reliability, especially in problems including many features and small training datasets.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.615
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.220 · 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