MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W185113732 · doi:10.5006/c2001-01214

Development of a Predictive Model for the Initiation and Early-Stage Growth of Near-Neutral pH SCC of Pipeline Steels

2001· article· en· W185113732 on OpenAlexaff
Fraser King, Tom Jack, Weixing Chen, Shenghui Wang, M. Elboujdaîni, Winston Revie, Robert Worthingham, Phil Dusek

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCorrosion Behavior and Inhibition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaTransCanada (Canada)Nova Chemicals (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)Stage (stratigraphy)MetallurgyMaterials scienceComputer scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The format of a model designed to predict the probability of near-neutral pH SCC initiation on operating pipelines is described. The model would be used in conjunction with existing site-selection models to improve the prioritization of SCC excavations and to increase the probability of locating SCC in the field. Information being developed as part of the program could also be used to design and select improved alloys and coating systems for new construction. The model is based on the results of a laboratory program aimed at identifying factors that lead to SCC initiation and early-stage crack growth, resulting in "viable" cracks. To date, five factors have been identified that lead to the earliest indications of crack initiation: inclusions, aligned defects, pre-existing defects on the pipe surface, persistent slip bands produced by mechanical pre-treatment of the steel, and coating disbondment. These factors produce defects on the surface several grains (~10's of μm) in length. The growth of these crack initiation events into definite cracks (defined as ≥100 μm in length) is being studied. Although not specifically studied in the program, residual stress is also known to affect crack initiation and early-stage growth.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCorrosion Behavior and InhibitionFrench-language works237,207