「ふげん」照射用ガドリニア燃料集合体の照射後試験報告書(II)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The "E09" was irradiated in the FUGEN from February 1990 to January 1997, and its average burn-up reached 37.7GWd/t at the end of irradiation. In order to be irradiated up to high burn-up, this fuel assembly had the design improved by applying the fissile content with axial distribution, four UO$_{2}$- Gd$_{2}$O$_{3}$fuel rods located with MOX fuel rods and so on. The E09 fuel assembly had been cooled in the FUGEN spent fuel pool for four years after irradiation.After that, it was transported to Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI) Tokai in 2001.Post Irradiation Examinations (PIE) were started in July 2001 at Reactor Fuel Examination Facility in JAERI, and a part of destructive examinations(Puncture examination, Ceramography, Metallography and alpha-autoradiography) were completed in March 2003. The destructive examinations will be completed by December 2004.In this report, the data obtained from destructive examinations completed in March 2003 were summarized, and the evaluation results of irradiation performance of MOX fuel and cladding were discussed. Consequently, the MOX fuel rod integrity during irradiation was confirmed from the result of the destructive PIE. These results will be used for CANDU-OPTION program, which is one of Russian surplus weapon plutonium disposition programs with AECL in Canada, and available for LWR plutonium recycle program in Japan.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".