MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996967045 · doi:10.1115/pvp2012-78794

Addressing the Challenge of Inspecting Buried Nuclear Piping in Nuclear Power Plants

2012· article· en· W1996967045 on OpenAlexaffabout
Peter Angell, Shenghui Wang, Phil Simon, Hank Kleinfelder, Kevin C. Garrity, Elizabeth Sisk

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 1: Codes and Standards · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear powerPipingNuclear power plantEngineeringAtomic energyNuclear industryForensic engineeringCivil engineeringNuclear engineeringMechanical engineeringNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Similar to many other industries, nuclear power plants (NPPs) have many kilometres of buried pipe that is not readily accessible for direct inspection. Given the nature of the systems, the nuclear industry experiences additional challenges as many services run in the same area, leading to what is described as a “spaghetti bowl” of piping. As a result, the traditional indirect, over the line, inspection practices developed for the oil and gas industry have not always been successfully applied at nuclear power plants. To address this issue, a collaborative Electric Power Research Institute/CANDU Owners Group (EPRI/COG) research project was established with Mears Group Inc. and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) Nuclear Laboratories. In this program, initial testing of four methods was carried out at the Mears Group Inc, test site that had been modified with additional grounding systems to simulate a nuclear power plant. This was followed by testing of the same methods at the AECL Nuclear Laboratories Chalk River site. This paper will discuss the results of those studies and present some of the findings that were made that can help to overcome the challenges faced by Nuclear Power Plants.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
GenreMethods

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 1: Codes and StandardsSame topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207