MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992805748 · doi:10.1115/ipc2004-0544

An Evaluation of Cathodic Protection Design Calculations on a Long Pipeline

2004· article· en· W1992805748 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

Venue2004 International Pipeline Conference, Volumes 1, 2, and 3 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsPetroleum Technology Alliance CanadaVale (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCathodic protectionPipeline (software)Pipeline transportCoatingComputer scienceMaterials scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringChemistryNanotechnologyElectrochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cathodic protection survey data from a major gas transmission pipeline is reviewed to determine the accuracy of the original design calculations. The calculations used to predict cathodic protection requirements are discussed to show the advantages and limitations of different methods. The analysis shows that the design calculations can predict overall trends, but significant variations can exist locally due to variations in the pipeline and its environment. Observed coating conductance values and recommendations for improved methods are given to aid in the design of future pipeline cathodic protection systems.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.244 · 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