MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974108201 · doi:10.1115/pvp2010-26129

User’s Design Specification Recommendations for ASME Section VIII, Division 2

2010· article· en· W1974108201 on OpenAlexaff
Trevor G. Seipp, Shiju V. P. George

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Failure Analysis and Simulation
Canadian institutionsBGC Engineering (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisk formattingSection (typography)Division (mathematics)Point (geometry)Computer scienceWork (physics)Work flowSoftware engineeringUser requirements documentEngineeringMechanical engineeringManufacturing engineeringOperating systemArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The UDS (Users Design Specification) is the design-basis document for ASME Section VIII, Division 2 pressure vessels. It defines the vessel design requirements and serves as the single point of reference for the Manufacturer’s Design Report (MDR). Despite its importance, the authors’ have observed instances where insufficient attention has been paid to the creation of this baseline document. This paper discusses both requirements and recommended good practices for writing a UDS in accordance with the new Division 2 requirements. The work and information flow to arrive at the required and recommended information is discussed. In particular, the multi-disciplinary nature of a well-developed UDS and the importance of change management will be emphasized. Finally, formatting and other good practices will be discussed.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0780.085

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMechanical Failure Analysis and SimulationFrench-language works237,207