MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1040459000 · doi:10.1520/stp104104

Development of a Test Apparatus/Method and Material Specifications for Protection from Steam under Pressure

2012· book-chapter· en· W1040459000 on OpenAlexaff
M. Y. Ackerman, Elizabeth M. Crown, J. D. Dale, Ghulam Murtaza, Jane Batcheller, José A. González

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicEngineering and Material Science Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrostatic testTest (biology)Process engineeringNuclear engineeringForensic engineeringReliability engineeringPetroleum engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Industrial steam presents a worker hazard that has not been addressed within the protective clothing industry to date, and traditional flame-resistant materials provide little protection against this hazard. A test method and associated equipment has been developed and evaluated against field measurements to ensure that the method is able to differentiate among materials and is representative of the actual hazard. A two-level system of ranking textiles has been suggested: Level 1—fabrics that would be used for everyday use, and Level 2—fabrics that could be used for higher risk operations. The two-level system proposed is based on energy transmitted through the material and time to the onset of a second-degree thermal injury

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.006

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering and Material Science ResearchFrench-language works237,207