MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054765477 · doi:10.1115/ipc2010-31381

ILI Tool Tolerance and Repeatability Effect on Corrosion Growth Rates

2010· article· en· W2054765477 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

Venue2010 8th International Pipeline Conference, Volume 1 · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepeatabilityNormalization (sociology)Pipeline (software)CorrosionComputer scienceReliability engineeringForensic engineeringData miningEngineeringStatisticsMaterials scienceMathematicsMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The knowledge of the rate at which corrosion grows in a given pipeline could be used to determine the time between inspections, find hot spots of high corrosion growth, and possibly prevent catastrophic failure of the pipeline. For these reasons many pipeline companies employ some method to calculate the growth between inspections years apart. This calculation may be on two sets of inspection data from different vendors using different technologies. This paper discusses normalization of data which is necessary for a fair data comparison. Growth rates are calculated for the normalized data for the complete population of anomalies, as well as individual anomalies. Analysis of tool tolerance and repeatability is then used to put the results into perspective.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.227 · 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