Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update group publications display #322

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: source
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

osanstrong
Copy link
Contributor

@osanstrong osanstrong commented Jul 12, 2024

Summary of changes

This PR updates the website's bibliography to include missing publications, and adds select PDFs of journal articles, refereed conference proceedings, and book chapters.

On creation (first two commits), this PR mimics the changes of #313 , in a new branch untainted with revised/removed pdf uploads.

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
  • My code follows the code style of this project.
  • My change requires a change to the documentation.
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly.
  • I have added tests to cover my changes.
  • All new and existing tests passed.

Associated Issues and PRs

Associated Developers

Checklist for Reviewers

Reviewers should use this link to get to the
Review Checklist before they begin their review.

Copy link
Contributor

@abachma2 abachma2 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for fixing this up @osanstrong! I have a few comments. I think there are two main things to think about, and @katyhuff may have to help you answer them:

  1. Are the things in the refrences.bib file relevant to the group? They definitely involve the group or members of the group in some way, but was the work done in the group?
  2. Does Prof. Huff want items from her time at DOE on the website?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Did this file get moved up a directory for some reason?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are we trying to add prelims to the website @katyhuff? I don't think those are typically public but it's your group.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Notably, the ashraf preliminary paper is not a prelim. It's a journal article whose first word is "Preliminary".

}

@phdthesis{yardas_implementation_2023,
type = {Thesis},
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
type = {Thesis},
type = {Masters Thesis},

There is something like this (this may not be exactly it) you can add it to tell bibtex this is an MS thesis, or else it assumes a PhD thesis.

journal = {Progress in Nuclear Energy},
author = {Bae, Jin Whan and Singer, Clifford E. and Huff, Kathryn D.},
month = jul,
y
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The @ here is red in the GitHUb diff. Can you check the syntax to make sure that isn't an issue here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's odd; I'll see if I can figure out why the diff highlighter thinks it's an error, but I just checked and these entries are still processed and appear on the website.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I couldn't fully identify what it was about them, but a few entries had large abstracts which, with linebreaks in them, prevented github's syntax highlighting from recognizing the end of the field (Whatever it was didn't seem to affect the website or vim parsing it properly); removing the linebreaks from these specific entries seems to have mostly fixed the syntax highlighting in the diff.

Comment on lines 857 to 2998
volume = {114},
issn = {0149-1970},
url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014919701930037X},
doi = {10.1016/j.pnucene.2019.02.001},
abstract = {The French 2012–2015 Commission Nationale d’Evaluation Reports emphasize preparation for a transition from Light Water Reactors (LWRs) to Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactors (SFRs). We used the Cyclus nuclear fuel cycle simulator to explore the feasibility of enabling a French transition to an SFR fleet by using Used Nuclear Fuel (UNF) from other European Union (EU) nations. A Cyclus simulation captured nuclear power deployment in the EU from 1970 to 2160. In this simulation, France begins its planned transition to SFRs as existing LWRs are decommissioned. These SFRs are fueled with UNF accumulated by other EU nations and reprocessed in France. The impact of reactor lifetime extensions and SFR breeding ratios on time-to-transition were investigated with additional simulations. These simulations demonstrate that France can avoid deployment of additional LWRs by accepting UNF from other EU nations, that lifetime extensions delay time-to-transition, and improved breeding ratios are not particularly impactful.},
urldate = {2019-04-15},
journal = {Progress in Nuclear Energy},
author = {Bae, Jin Whan and Singer, Clifford E. and Huff, Kathryn D.},
month = jul,
y
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@katyhuff, do you want this one in here? This seems like an "official DOE" thing. There might be a couple more that fit under this catagory in here.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry @abachma2 -- whichever thing you commented on is no longer where it was, so I don't know which paper you meant to reference with this comment (I believe this is because @osanstrong had to revert some commits).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Things did get moved around. The broad question here is if you want items from your time at DOE on this website, since you were on an official leave of absence from the university. I think 2 examples of this are lines 2960-3024.

Comment on lines 864 to 3310
author = {Bae, Jin Whan and Singer, Clifford E. and Huff, Kathryn D.},
month = jul,
y
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this an MS or PHD thesis

Comment on lines 855 to 3844
@article{bae_synergistic_2019,
title = {Synergistic spent nuclear fuel dynamics within the {European} {Union}},
volume = {114},
issn = {0149-1970},
url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014919701930037X},
doi = {10.1016/j.pnucene.2019.02.001},
abstract = {The French 2012–2015 Commission Nationale d’Evaluation Reports emphasize preparation for a transition from Light Water Reactors (LWRs) to Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactors (SFRs). We used the Cyclus nuclear fuel cycle simulator to explore the feasibility of enabling a French transition to an SFR fleet by using Used Nuclear Fuel (UNF) from other European Union (EU) nations. A Cyclus simulation captured nuclear power deployment in the EU from 1970 to 2160. In this simulation, France begins its planned transition to SFRs as existing LWRs are decommissioned. These SFRs are fueled with UNF accumulated by other EU nations and reprocessed in France. The impact of reactor lifetime extensions and SFR breeding ratios on time-to-transition were investigated with additional simulations. These simulations demonstrate that France can avoid deployment of additional LWRs by accepting UNF from other EU nations, that lifetime extensions delay time-to-transition, and improved breeding ratios are not particularly impactful.},
urldate = {2019-04-15},
journal = {Progress in Nuclear Energy},
author = {Bae, Jin Whan and Singer, Clifford E. and Huff, Kathryn D.},
month = jul,
y
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Really not sure @katyhuff wants this one in the group publications 😆

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry @abachma2 -- whichever thing you commented on is no longer where it was, so I don't know which paper you meant to reference with this comment (I believe this is because @osanstrong had to revert some commits).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This comment was in reference to a news article about Dr. Huff being banned from entry into Russia because of her position in the US Executive Branch. The item is now at line 3820.

Comment on lines 865 to 4352
month = jul,
y
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This one was a seminar at UTK, which I think should be the address, and not UIUC.

journal = {Progress in Nuclear Energy},
author = {Bae, Jin Whan and Singer, Clifford E. and Huff, Kathryn D.},
month = jul,
y
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Another one with a red @

@osanstrong
Copy link
Contributor Author

I will discuss publication relevancies again with Professor Huff; Correct, the latest list was publications which were by ARFC members (as members) or the group as a whole. This can definitely be revised, especially in regards to file uploads before merging anything.

As for the MS/PHD thesis differentiation, I'll go through the theses on Zotero and make sure that distinction is present.

@osanstrong
Copy link
Contributor Author

@katyhuff
I came back to review this again, and I wanted to check in on what files we wanted added to the website:

  • Conference Proceedings: After the last time we talked about this a while back, I was under the impression we don't want to add PDF copies of these. Am I remembering that correctly?
  • Journal Articles:
    • Some listed articles were written by then-active ARFC members, but alongside some or even mostly non-ARFC authors. (E.g. the article about JOSS has 16 co-authors, though it already had a pdf uploaded anyways) Should new files only be added for articles written primarily by ARFC members, or are files still relevant so long as they're by an ARFC author and relevant to the group?
    • Should these file uploads be minimized by any other criteria? (E.g., whether you in particular are one of the authors, for the sake of consent)
  • Other:
    • Did we want files for books/book chapters on the publication list? I had been guessing not, at the very least because of the file size, let alone other considerations.

@katyhuff
Copy link
Member

Thanks for the question @osanstrong .

Conference Proceedings: After the last time we talked about this a while back, I was under the impression we don't want to add PDF copies of these. Am I remembering that correctly?

I don't think these need to be a priority unless they are "referreed conference proceedings".

Journal Articles:
Some listed articles were written by then-active ARFC members, but alongside some or even mostly non-ARFC authors. (E.g. the article about JOSS has 16 co-authors, though it already had a pdf uploaded anyways) Should new files only be added for articles written primarily by ARFC members, or are files still relevant so long as they're by an ARFC author and relevant to the group?

It does not matter how many collaborators are on the paper. Articles on which an ARFC member was a co-author while they were in the group should be included.

Should these file uploads be minimized by any other criteria? (E.g., whether you in particular are one of the authors, for the sake of consent)

I'm not sure I understand this question.

Did we want files for books/book chapters on the publication list? I had been guessing not, at the very least because of the file size, let alone other considerations.

No

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants