MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006463249 · doi:10.1115/ipc2006-10397

Godin Lake Trial: X120 Field Welding

2006· article· en· W2006463249 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicholas E. Biery, M.L. Macia, R.J.T. Appleby, Doug P. Fairchild, Doug S. Hoyt, David V. Dorling, David Horsley

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 3: Materials and Joining; Pipeline Automation and Measurement; Risk and Reliability, Parts A and B · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsumablesWeldingPipeline transportPipeline (software)Field (mathematics)ProductivityLine (geometry)EngineeringEnvironmental scienceMechanical engineeringMathematicsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In February 2004, ExxonMobil and TransCanada PipeLines, Limited (TCPL) cooperated to construct a 1.6 km long segment of X120 pipeline near Wabasca, Alberta. The line included numerous mainline and tie-in welds, and an extra section of pipe was constructed in the field for later destructive testing to assess the characteristics of field welds. This line represented the first field application of welding procedures and consumables developed specifically for X120. The technologies used performed well; productivity and weld repair rates were better than expected, and the properties of these welds made in challenging conditions compare well with development welds made under controlled “shop” conditions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.003

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 3: Materials and Joining; Pipeline Automation and Measurement; Risk and Reliability, Parts A and BSame topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207