MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032619903 · doi:10.1177/0954406211421999

Research on pipeline elbow passing for in-pipe robot

2011· article· en· W2032619903 on OpenAlexaff
Junqi Qiao, Jianzhong Shang

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part C Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)RobotMoment (physics)Pipeline transportProcess (computing)MATLABComputer scienceEngineeringAlgorithmSimulationStructural engineeringMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In-pipe robots provide inspection and maintenance services to various pipelines. This article proposes an algorithm to calculate the required radial variations for in-pipe robots to pass through pipeline elbows smoothly. It first gives a full overview of a robot passing through a U-shaped elbow and identifies the problem location where the radial dimension changes the most. It then presents a detailed analysis on the focused stage and deduces the algorithm. Based on the obtained algorithm, a realizing Matlab program is written to calculate all possible lengths of front and rear legs at every moment during the process. Finally, the calculation results are presented to precisely describe the track of movement, the length deformations during the whole process, and different contributions of structural variables. This article provides the design and the control of an in-pipe robot with an algorithm to calculate the lengths of its legs at every moment and to what extent the deformations of elastic legs are required.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part C Journal of Mechanical Engineering ScienceSame topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207