MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W119764546 · doi:10.5006/c2008-08143

Evaluation of Classification and Prioritization Criteria Based on the Results of Direct Examinations

2008· article· en· W119764546 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Diagnostics and Reliability
Canadian institutionsSpectra Energy (Canada)Union Gas (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrioritizationComputer scienceReliability engineeringEngineeringManagement science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The ECDA process requires a continuous effort from the pipeline operator to improve the reliability of classification and prioritization criteria. Based on the results of the direct examinations, these criteria can be up-graded or down-graded as part of the retrospective evaluation and the number of such re-evaluations can be used as criteria in the long-term assessment of the ECDA effectiveness. This paper covers criteria evaluation and specific lessons learned by comparing the results of the direct examinations with predictions based on indirect inspections and pre-assessment data collected on more than 30 gas pipelines in Ontario, Canada.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering Diagnostics and ReliabilityFrench-language works237,207