MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024392733 · doi:10.1115/ipc2004-0274

Automatic, Non-Intrusive, Flame Detection in Pipelines

2004· article· en· W2024392733 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael D. Morgan, S. A. Mehta, T. J. Al-Himyary, R.G. Moore

Bibliographic record

Venue2004 International Pipeline Conference, Volumes 1, 2, and 3 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlammable liquidCombustionNoise (video)Filter (signal processing)Pipeline transportAcousticsEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEngineeringElectrical engineeringWaste managementPhysicsArtificial intelligenceEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many methods of flame detection are available. Unfortunately, few offer remote, non-line-of-sight, detection. In cases where flammable mixtures are transported within tubing (such as flare lines, storage tank vents, air drilling, and improperly designed purging operations) there is often no means by which combustion can be detected. This is a significant deficiency in some applications. If the mixture were to ignite, the results could be catastrophic. To address this problem, combustion noise is being investigated at the University of Calgary as a possible means of detecting flames within tubing. An experimental study has been completed that shows that combustion noise can be distinguished from other sources of noise by its inverse power law relationship with frequency. A robust algorithm has been developed that, when combined with high-speed pressure measurements, provides early detection of flames. When combined with other filters, the algorithm can automatically separate combustion noise from other sources of noise. In this paper, a stop band filter was used to remove the noise created by a fluttering check valve.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.195 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2004 International Pipeline Conference, Volumes 1, 2, and 3Same topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207