MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978185032 · doi:10.1515/corrrev-2012-0024

Comparison of international standards to evaluate field-applied pipeline girth weld coatings

2012· article· en· W1978185032 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sankara Papaviansam, Natashah Zaver, Jennifer Pollock

Bibliographic record

VenueCorrosion Reviews · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Properties and Failure Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoatingWeldingGirth (graph theory)Materials scienceCathodic protectionJoint (building)MetallurgyCorrosionPipeline transportComposite materialCivil engineeringMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The external surfaces of all underground oil and gas pipelines are protected by polymeric coatings and cathodic protection. The polymeric coatings are classified under two types: mainline coating and girth weld coating. Most of the modern mainline coatings are applied in the mill as line pipes are made. The mainline-coated line pipes are shipped to the construction site where they are joined by welding. Over the weld joint – commonly known as girth weld – coatings are applied in the field. The mainline coating, girth weld coating, and cathodic protection all should function in a complementary fashion. The standards developed by various associations for evaluating and selecting mainline coatings were previously reviewed. In this article, three international standards for girth weld coatings developed by the Canadian Standards Association, National Association of Corrosion Engineers, and International Standards Organization have been reviewed and compared with those for mainline coatings. It should be noted that in addition to these international standards, other country-specific standards are also available.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0170.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCorrosion ReviewsSame topicMaterial Properties and Failure MechanismsFrench-language works237,207