MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046262418 · doi:10.1115/pvp2014-28462

Technical Basis for Proposed Revisions to Code Case N-806, Evaluation of Metal Loss in Class 2 and 3 Metallic Piping Buried in a Back-Filled Trench

2014· article· en· W2046262418 on OpenAlexaff
Robert O. McGill, Mark A. Moenssens, George Antaki, Douglas A. Scarth

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 1: Codes and Standards · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipingTrenchCode (set theory)EngineeringStructural engineeringSection (typography)Forensic engineeringComputer scienceMechanical engineeringMaterials scienceProgramming languageComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ASME Section XI Code Case N-806, for evaluation of metal loss in Class 2 and 3 metallic piping buried in a back-filled trench, was published in 2012. This Code Case has been prepared by the ASME Section XI Task Group on Evaluation Procedures for Degraded Buried Pipe. The Code Case addresses the nuclear industry need for evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria for the disposition of metal loss that is discovered during the inspection of metallic piping buried in a back-filled trench. A number of improvements have been proposed for Code Case N-806. These include improvements to the analytical procedures for structural integrity evaluation under soil and surcharge loads. In addition, tables of soil properties and other parameters needed in the evaluation are proposed to be provided to improve ease of use. This paper presents the technical basis for the proposed revision to Code Case N-806.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0070.002
Research integrity0.0100.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.027

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 venueVolume 1: Codes and StandardsSame topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207