MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W113596500 · doi:10.5006/c2005-05479

Development of SCC Susceptibility Model Using Decision Tree Approach

2005· article· en· W113596500 on OpenAlexaff
Bill Gu, Richard Kania, Ming Gao, Wayne Feil

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsImperial Oil (Canada)Alberta Energy
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecision treeComputer scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Stress corrosion cracking (SCC) on pipelines has been extensively studied over the past three to four decades. Various models have been developed to predict where and how fast SCC occurs on pipelines. However, due to the complexity of SCC, no general models are currently available to accurately predict SCC on pipelines. Models developed based on operating experience for one geographic location has often performed poorly in another region. For example, the SCC soils model developed in the past predicts that low-pH SCC will occur in poorly drained, anaerobic soils; however, in the same general geographic region, low-pH SCC has also been found to occur preferentially in well-drained soils. It is therefore critical to collect all related data and understand the actual SCC mechanism to develop an effective SCC susceptibility model that will be more generally applicable. This paper introduces a data mining methodology, a decision tree approach, for identification of the correlation between the presence of SCC and environmental/ loading conditions and further refinement of SCC susceptibility with mechanistic understanding.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Mining Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207