GIF Evaluation Methodology for Proliferation Resistance and Physical Protection of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems:\nOverview and Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) was initiated in 2000 and formally chartered in mid 2001. It was set-up as an international collective representing the governments of ten Countries (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of South Africa, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States) strongly involved in the deployment and development of nuclear technology for energy production. The European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM), represented by the European Commission, signed the GIF charter on July 30, 2003. The People¿s Republic of China and the Russian Federation signed the GIF charter in November 2006.\n\nThe Technology Goals for Generation IV nuclear energy systems, developed during the Roadmap project [1], highlight Proliferation Resistance and Physical Protection (PR&PP) as one of the four goal areas for these technologies, along with Sustainability, Safety & Reliability, and Economics. On the basis of these four goal areas an evaluation methodology was developed which contributed to identify the six nuclear energy systems (NES) options currently under consideration by GIF.\n\nThe Generation IV Roadmap recommended the development of a comprehensive evaluation methodology to assess PR&PP of Generation IV nuclear energy systems. Accordingly the PR&PP Expert Group was formed and tasked by the GIF in December 2002 to develop an improved evaluation methodology on the basis of the Roadmap¿s recommendation. The group includes members of the GIF and representatives from the IAEA. \n\nThe methodology is organised as a progressive approach applying alternative methods at different levels of thoroughness as more design information becomes available and research improves the depth of technical knowledge. To date, the overall framework of the methodology is considered rather accepted and stable; the methodology was advanced with a development case study and has been tested though a demonstration case study.\n\nThis paper provides an updated overview of the methodology approach developed by the PR&PP Expert Group. The paper also highlights some of the achievements and the lessons learned during the demonstration case study carried out in 2005-2006, in which different techniques have been applied for the implementation of the PR&PP evaluation framework. Finally the paper presents some of the ongoing activities and future directions for the activity of the group.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".