MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095380783

individual responsibility of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Atomic Energy of

2008· article· en· W7095380783 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIrish and British Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtomic energyDocumentationNuclear powerCommissionPower (physics)Legislation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s (CNSC) licensing and oversight process. The review, performed by a team from Talisman International, LLC, consisted of document reviews and interviews, and was focused on the renewal of the NRU licence in 2005 and 2006, and the extended outage in late 2007. In November 2005, CNSC renewed the operating licence for the NRU reactor with a licence condition that “all 7 NRU upgrades are fully operational by December 31, 2005. ” In July 2006, the licence was renewed for 63 months, based on “recently completed safety upgrades”. In November 2007, CNSC staff brought to AECL’s attention a discrepancy between NRU documentation and the physical state of the plant. Specifically, two of the main heavy water pumps (MHWPs) were not connected to the hazards qualified Emergency Power Supply (EPS), even though some AECL documents described the upgrades as fully operational. Further investigation led to the following: confirmation from AECL that the connection was not in place; concerns from CNSC staff that operation without the connection was outside the licensing basis, and that the reactor should not operate in such a configuration without

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0100.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.011

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIrish and British StudiesFrench-language works237,207