MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038527423 · doi:10.1115/ipc2012-90335

Model Error Assessment of Burst Capacity Models for Corroded Pipes

2012· article· en· W2038527423 on OpenAlex
Wenxing Zhou, G. Huang, S. Zhang

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)Western University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPipeline transportPipeline (software)CorrosionTest dataProbability distributionComputer scienceReliability engineeringStructural engineeringEngineeringStatisticsMaterials scienceMathematicsComposite materialMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The model errors associated with five representative burst pressure prediction models, namely B31G, B31G Modified, DNV, PCORRC and RSTRENG, for corroded pipelines are evaluated based on a relatively large number full-scale burst tests on corroded pipes reported in the literature. All the test specimens in the database contain single isolated real corrosion defects. The means, coefficients of variation (COVs) and probability distribution of the model errors for the considered burst capacity models are derived based on the test-to-predicted burst pressure ratios for the collected test data. A numerical example is used to illustrate the impact of the model error on the probability of burst of the corroding pipeline.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.223 · 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