MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978774887 · doi:10.1115/ipc2012-90238

Essential Elements of an Effective SCC Direct Assessment Program

2012· article· en· W1978774887 on OpenAlexaff
Steve Rapp, James E. Marr, Flores Martínez, Gary Vervake, A. D. Batte

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete Corrosion and Durability
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStress corrosion crackingJoint (building)EngineeringIntegrity managementComputer scienceForensic engineeringPipeline transportSystems engineeringCivil engineeringCorrosionMechanical engineeringMetallurgyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) Direct Assessment in accordance with the guidance set out in NACE SP0204 is an accepted method for assessing the threat of SCC in High Consequence Areas in the US, as prescribed for gas transmission pipelines by CFR 192 Sub-part O. Although operators have used excavations as part of their integrity management strategies for SCC for many years, the formalized method for gathering, interpretation and application of information that is set out in NACE SP0204 has only been applied for less than ten years. During a recent Joint Industry Project involving eight major North American natural gas transmission operators, the current status and application of SCC Direct Assessment has been reviewed. Several of these operators have developed in-house procedures incorporating the relevant guidance from NACE, CEPA and ASME, and over 160 SCC Direct Assessment excavations in accordance with the requirements of NACE SP0204 have been undertaken during the last five years. This paper reviews the development of the procedures, their in-field application and the use of the interpreted data to further refine the SCC Direct Assessment processes.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConcrete Corrosion and DurabilityFrench-language works237,207