Comparative Analysis of Energy Deposition Modes Available in Serpent 2 Within the Framework of the SCWR-FQT Reactor Physics Benchmark
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A joint European Canadian Chinese development of a supercritical water-cooled small modular reactor (SCW-SMR) technology is in progress since September 2020 in the framework of a Horizon 2020 project called ECC-SMART. As a main purpose of the project, proper estimates of energy deposition and its spatial distribution are prerequisites for the accurate analysis of safety related parameters of the SCW-SMR concept under development. A supercritical water reactor fuel computational benchmark model, provided by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, was applied \nfor detailed comparison of different energy deposition calculation options available in the Serpent 2 Monte Carlo code. The effect of energy deposition options on the normalization of the results as well as on the spatial distribution of the energy deposition are discussed. Consistent energy deposition calculation methods are presented between three Monte Carlo codes, viz., Serpent 2, MCNP6 and OpenMC. Although resource-intensive, the use of the coupled neutron-photon transport mode of Serpent 2 is recommended for accurate spatial and quantitative characterization of energy deposition in the SCW-SMR fuel assemblies, accounting for both neutron and photon heating of all the materials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".