MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1934592853 · doi:10.1061/9780784479360.142

Oil and Gas Pipeline Technology Finds Uses in the Water and Wastewater Industry

2015· article· en· W1934592853 on OpenAlexaff
Shamus McDonnell, Chukwuma Onuoha

Bibliographic record

VenuePipelines 2015 · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLife Cycle Costing Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWastewaterPipeline (software)Petroleum engineeringPetroleum industryGas industryPipeline transportEnvironmental scienceWaste managementFossil fuelComputer scienceEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringNatural gasOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Failure in oil and gas pipelines due to leaks has led regulators to require operators to implement ever more rigorous inspections. However, advances in inspection technology developed for oil and gas pipelines have not been fully utilized for water and wastewater pipelines. ANSI/NACE Standard Practice 0502 — Pipeline External Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology has been developed to ensure safe operation of pipelines and prevention of external corrosion in non-piggable pipelines. This standard requires a minimum of two indirect inspections to confirm the most susceptible locations on a pipeline for external corrosion to occur. While legacy technology requires a technician to first locate and map a pipeline, then to conduct individual inspections for coating faults, cathodic protection, and soil data, external line inspection (XLI) technology combines up to 10 different inspection techniques into one integrated inspection. A case study is provided to show the potential and limitations of this advanced inspection technology.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePipelines 2015Same topicLife Cycle Costing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207