MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W57653626 · doi:10.13182/nt02-a3267

Iodine Behavior Under Conditions Relating to Nuclear Reactor Accidents

2002· article· en· W57653626 on OpenAlexaff
Fariborz Taghipour, Greg J. Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Technology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicRadioactive element chemistry and processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIodineVolatilisationChemistryVolatility (finance)RadiochemistryEnvironmental chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The short-term radiological impact of some serious reactor accidents may be governed by the release of airborne radioiodine to the environment. The impacts of parameters affecting iodine volatility, including radiation, iodine concentration, and solution pH, were investigated under a range of postaccident chemical conditions expected in a reactor containment structure. A bench-scale apparatus, installed in the irradiation chamber of a Gammacell, was used to measure the rate of iodine volatilization from dilute, 10-6 to 10-4 M, CsI solutions with pH values from 5 to 9. Iodine volatilization dramatically increased in the presence of radiation. The volatilization rates were nearly proportional to iodine concentration over the range of concentrations and pH values examined. Volatilization rate increased significantly with a decrease in pH. A kinetic-based model containing a mechanistic description of iodine chemistry was developed to simulate the radiation chemistry of iodine. The majority of the model prediction and experimental results of iodine volatilization rates were in agreement, although some divergence was evident.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear TechnologySame topicRadioactive element chemistry and processingFrench-language works237,207