MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414953835 · doi:10.1115/pvp2025-154690

Assessment of Adequacy of Upper-Shelf Fracture Toughness Model for Zr-2.5Nb Pressure Tubes for Fitness-For-Service Evaluations

2025· article· en· W4414953835 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cheng Liu, Leonid Gutkin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFracture toughnessFracture (geology)Pressure vesselToughnessFailure assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The fracture toughness of Zr-2.5%Nb pressure tubes in CANDU®1 reactors is an important material property for evaluation of protection against fracture and demonstration of leak-before-break. A probabilistic predictive model for fracture toughness of irradiated pressure tubes in the upper-shelf temperature regime was developed on the basis of material surveillance results. The model was subsequently incorporated into the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standard N285.8 as the reference model in fitness-for-service evaluations of pressure tubes that use the upper-shelf fracture toughness as an input. As required by CSA Standard N285.4, the model is to be periodically reviewed with material surveillance results of upper-shelf fracture toughness to evaluate its adequacy as a representative model. New burst-test data for upper-shelf fracture toughness have been obtained from ex-service surveillance pressure tubes and other experimental programs since the upper-shelf fracture toughness model was developed. Assessment of the adequacy of the upper-shelf fracture toughness model for Zr-2.5%Nb pressure tubes for continued use in fitness-for-service evaluations was performed, as documented in this paper.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Materials and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207