MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059611438 · doi:10.1115/ipc2002-27307

Enbridge Comparison of Crack Detection In-Line Inspection Tools

2002· article· en· W2059611438 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venue4th International Pipeline Conference, Parts A and B · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)Pipeline transportLine (geometry)Ultrasonic testingPower (physics)EngineeringAcousticsStructural engineeringMechanical engineeringUltrasonic sensorPhysicsGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. operates the world’s longest and most complex liquids pipeline network. As part of Enbridge’s Integrity Management Program In-Line Inspections have been and will continue to be conducted on more than 15,000 km of pipeline. This extensive program is comprised of a mature metal loss and geometry inspection component as well as a crack inspection program utilizing the most sophisticated In-Line Inspection (ILI) tools available. Enbridge conducted its first ultrasonic crack inspection with the British Gas Elastic Wave Vehicle (Now GE Power Systems – Oil & Gas – PII Pipeline Solutions) in September 1993 on a Canadian portion of it’s 864–mm (34”) diameter line. The Elastic Wave Vehicle was also used for crack detection on additional segments of this same 864–mm (34”) diameter line during the following years, 1994, 1995 and 1996. Enbridge then conducted its first crack inspection with the Pipetronix UltraScan CD tool (Now also GE Power Systems – Oil & Gas – PII Pipeline Solutions) in November 1997 on a segment of this 864–mm (34”) diameter line that was previously inspected with the Elastic Wave Vehicle. The UltraScan CD tool was then utilized again in 1999, 2000 and 2001 completing crack inspection of the Canadian portion of this 864–mm (34”) diameter line. Enbridge conducted its first magnetic crack inspection with the PII TranScan (TFI) Circumferential Magnetic inspection tool in December 1998 on a United States portion of another 864–mm (34”) diameter line. This same section of line was subsequently inspected with the PII UltraScan CD tool in July 2001. This paper discusses the comparison of results from overlapping crack inspection data analysis from these three PII crack detection tools. Specifically, the overlap of the UltraScan CD and Elastic Wave Vehicle along with the overlap of the UltraScan CD and TranScan (TFI) tool. The relative performance of each crack detection tool will be explored and conclusions drawn.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.224 · 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