Intercomparison and validation of computer codes for thermalhydraulic safety analysis of heavy water reactors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Activities within the frame of the IAEA’s Technical Working Group on Advanced\n\nTechnologies for HWRs (TWG-HWR) are conducted in a project within the IAEA’s\n\nsubprogramme on nuclear power reactor technology development. The objective of the\n\nactivities on HWRs is to foster, within the frame of the TWG-HWR, information exchange\n\nand co-operative research on technology development for current and future HWRs, with an\n\nemphasis on safety, economics and fuel resource sustainability.\n\nOne of the activities recommended by the TWG-HWR was an international standard problem\n\nexercise entitled: “Intercomparison and validation of computer codes for thermalhydraulics\n\nsafety analyses”. Intercomparison and validation of computer codes used in different\n\ncountries for thermalhydraulics safety analyses will enhance the confidence in the predictions\n\nmade by these codes. However, the intercomparison and validation exercise needs a set of\n\nreliable experimental data. The RD-14M Large-Loss Of Coolant Accident (LOCA) test\n\nB9401 simulating HWR LOCA behaviour that was conducted by Atomic Energy of Canada\n\nLtd (AECL) was selected for this validation project. This report provides a comparison of the\n\nresults obtained from six participating countries, utilizing four different computer codes.\n\nGeneral conclusions are reached and recommendations made.\n\nThe IAEA expresses its appreciation to the CANDU Owners Group (COG) for releasing the\n\nexperimental data to the international community, and to D. Richards of AECL, Canada for\n\nleading the activity. The IAEA officer responsible for this publication was R. Lyon of the\n\nDivision of Nuclear Power.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".