MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Detecting breaks in prestressing pipe wire

2000· article· en· W1480120526 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
D.L. Atherton, Keith Morton, Brian Mergelas

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Water Works Association · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAmerican Water Works Association Research Foundation
KeywordsEddy-current testingPipeline transportBar (unit)Eddy currentPrestressed concreteStructural engineeringCylinderNondestructive testingWater pipeCanalisationEngineeringForensic engineeringMechanical engineeringElectrical engineeringGeologyPiping

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new electromagnetic technique for inspecting prestressed concrete pressure pipe enables nonintrusive inspection for even single broken prestressing wires. Prestressed concrete pressure pipe (CPP) is in widespread use throughout Canada and the United States, with a total of some 19,000 mi (30,000 km) of pipe in use in North America's major water utilities. Many of these lines are more than 50 years old, and half are expected to need repair or replacement over the next 20 years. To selectively maintain these lines and avoid costs from catastrophic pipe failures, utilities needed an inspection technique that was highly sensitive, reliable, effective, and economical. An innovative electromagnetic technique, based on the remote field eddy current (RFEC) inspection technique, has been developed that allows nonintrusive inspection of prestressed CPP. Full‐scale testing conducted on embedded cylinder pipes and bar‐wrapped pipelines demonstrated the new RFEC technique's sensitivity to both single and multiple breaks in prestressing wire.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
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

Citations14
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Water Works AssociationSame topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207