MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409754604 · doi:10.1299/jsmefdr.2024.0_1021

UPDATING FISSION PRODUCT CHEMISTRY DATABASE BASED ON RECENT INVESTIGATION IN FUKUSHIMA-DAIICHI NUCLEAR POWER STATION (2) TEMPERATURE EFFECTS ON THE DEPOSITION BEHAVIOR OF CsOH AEROSOLS ON CONCRETE MAIN PHASE-CaCO<sub>3</sub>

2024· article· en· W4409754604 on OpenAlexaff
Vu Nhut Luu, Kunihisa Nakajima, Muhammad Rizaal, Shuhei Miwa

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Topical Workshop on Fukushima Decommissioning Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicChemical Synthesis and Characterization
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear fission productFission productsNuclear powerDeposition (geology)ChemistryActinideEnvironmental chemistryRadiochemistryNuclear engineeringEnvironmental scienceNuclear chemistryNuclear physicsGeologyEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The trapping behavior of cesium (Cs) on concrete, such as pedestal and shield plugs, was assessed through multiple deposition tests of CsOH aerosols on concrete main phaseCaCO3 within a temperature range of 170oC to 570oC under humid conditions. The deposition rate of CsOH aerosols on CaCO3 as a function of temperature was examined. X-ray diffraction analysis revealed the presence of water-soluble Cs2CO3 on CaCO3 samples up to 420oC, but negligible detection above this temperature. This finding is supported by quantitative analyses of Cs weight gain and chemical analysis, demonstrating an increase in deposition rate up to 420oC, followed by a decline thereafter. The increased deposition rate is attributed to the chemical interaction between CsOH and CaCO3, while the diminished rate beyond 420oC may result from the decomposition of CaCO3 under steam, thereby reducing the available reactant for the chemical reaction with CsOH.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Topical Workshop on Fukushima Decommissioning ResearchSame topicChemical Synthesis and CharacterizationFrench-language works237,207