MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981844573 · doi:10.1115/1.1287034

Evaluation and Application of Data Sources for Assessing Operating Costs for Mechanical Drive Gas Turbines in Pipeline Service

2000· article· en· W1981844573 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Power Generation Technologies
Canadian institutionsUnion Gas (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHorsepowerGas turbinesAutomotive engineeringPipeline (software)Pipeline transportEngineeringWork (physics)Service (business)Fuel gasReliability engineeringComputer scienceMechanical engineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper evaluates and demonstrates how the public domain data provided by individual interstate pipeline companies to FERC, when combined with individual company equipment lists, can be used to regress industry information on cost of operations and maintenance, fuel gas used, and cost of fuel and power. The paper describes the methods of analysis and identifies their limitations. The paper presents results of such regression analysis as average and variance of cost and fuel usage for industrial gas turbines and aeroderivative gas turbines. It provides further comparisons between gas turbine prime movers, reciprocating engine prime movers, and electric motor drives, and presents annual costs per installed horsepower as a function of turbine size. The paper is based on work performed for PRC International and the Gas Research Institute. [S0742-4795(00)01003-6]

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.277 · 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