MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971599007 · doi:10.1115/ipc2010-31489

Pipeline Integrity Evaluation of Oil Pipelines Using Free-Swimming Acoustic Technology

2010· article· en· W1971599007 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel T. Ariaratnam, Muthu Chandrasekaran

Bibliographic record

Venue2010 8th International Pipeline Conference, Volume 1 · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsPure North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportPipeline (software)LeakIntegrity managementPetroleum engineeringMarine engineeringHazardous wasteOil fieldEngineeringEnvironmental scienceMechanical engineeringWaste managementEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significant financial and environmental consequences often result from line leakage of oil product pipelines. Product can escape into the surrounding soil as even the smallest leak can lead to rupture of the pipeline. From a health perspective, water supplies may be tainted by oil migrating into aquifers. A joint academic-industry research initiative funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has lead to the development and refinement of a free-swimming tool called SmartBall®, which is capable of detecting leaks as small as 0.03 gpm in oil product pipelines. The tool swims through the pipeline being assessed and produces results at significantly reduced cost to the end user compared to current leak detection methods. GPS synchronized GIS-based above ground loggers capture low frequency acoustic signatures and digitally log the passage of the tool through a pipeline. This paper presents the development, laboratory and field validation testing of the SmartBall for oil pipeline integrity.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.272
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 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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2010 8th International Pipeline Conference, Volume 1Same topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207