MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006623079 · doi:10.1061/9780784413692.017

What In-Line Technologies Work Best for Condition Assessment of Pipelines and Why

2014· article· en· W2006623079 on OpenAlexaff
D.E. Russell

Bibliographic record

VenuePipelines 2014 · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportMagnetic flux leakagePipeline (software)Leakage (economics)EngineeringLine (geometry)Oil fieldComputer scienceAsset (computer security)Petroleum engineeringMarine engineeringMechanical engineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Direct condition assessment (DCA) of pipelines in water, waste water, oil, or gas service is growing in popularity due to the fact that asset managers need to know the condition of their pipelines, in detail, to maintain them and extend their life. Knowing which DCA tool is best for a given type of pipeline is an important step in selecting the best technology. This paper discusses the attributes of in-line inspection (ILI) tools that utilize remote field technology (RFT), ultrasonic (UT), electromagnetic acoustic technology (EMAT), and magnetic flux leakage (MFL) tools and discusses the strengths and limitations of each.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePipelines 2014Same topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207