MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W809971851 · doi:10.13182/fst14-t14

Replacement of Tritiated Water from Irradiated Fuel Storage Bay

2015· article· en· W809971851 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFusion Science & Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceTritiumSwap (finance)Nuclear engineeringBayTritiated waterSpent nuclear fuelGroundwaterWaste managementHeavy waterSavannah River SiteRadioactive wasteNuclear physicsEngineeringGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, AECL developed a novel method to reduce tritium emissions (to groundwater) and personnel doses at the NRU (National Research Universal) reactor irradiated fuel storage bay (also known as rod or spent fuel bay) through a water swap process. The light water in the fuel bay had built up tritium that had been transferred from the heavy water moderator through normal fuel transfers. A demonstration of the method was done that involved Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modeling of the swap process and a test program that showed excellent agreement with model prediction for the effective removal of almost all the tritium with a minimal water volume. Building on the successful demonstration, AECL fabricated, installed, commissioned and operated a full-scale system to perform a water swap. This paper describes the results of the successful full-scale water swap operation, which achieved a tritium removal efficiency of ~96%

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.218 · 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