MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042353798 · doi:10.1115/ipc2014-33294

Investigation and Assessment of Low-Frequency ERW Seam Imperfections by EMAT and CMFL ILI

2014· article· en· W2042353798 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Kania, Ralf Weber, Stefan Klein

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectromagnetic acoustic transducerEngineeringAcoustic emissionAcousticsElectrical engineeringUltrasonic testingUltrasonic sensor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The occurrence of low-frequency Electric Resistance Welded (LF-ERW) or Electric Flash Welded (EFW) line pipe imperfections has been the root cause of many integrity management initiatives to minimize and mitigate the risk of pipeline failure across the oil & gas pipeline industry. Since their first appearance in the 1920s, defects in or near the LF-ERW and EFW seam repeatedly lead to either hydrostatic test or in-service failures. Where in the past In-Line Inspection (ILI) technologies might have experienced limitations in addressing vintage ERW line pipe defects, modern smart ILI technologies show enhanced capabilities. High resolution Electro-Magnetic Acoustic Transducer (EMAT) and Circumferential Magnetic Flux Leakage (CMFL) ILI technologies have advanced in the recent years enabling more challenging inspections. This paper summarizes the inspection results of 22″ ERW line pipe defects detected and reported by EMAT and CMFL. Correlation of ILI and manual NDE data enables evaluation of current ILI capabilities and improvement of current defect assessment methods.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207