MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062661370 · doi:10.5006/1.3277529

Comparison of Techniques for Monitoring Corrosion Inhibitors in Oil and Gas Pipelines

2003· article· en· W2062661370 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

VenueCORROSION · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsDevon Energy (Canada)Natural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrosionPipeline transportPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceMetallurgyForensic engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Addition of corrosion inhibitors is one of the common methods to control both general and pitting corrosion of oil and gas pipelines. Development of an integrity management program to control internal corrosion of such pipelines depends on our ability to monitor the efficiency of the inhibitor performance. Monitoring in an oil and gas pipeline is a complex process due to the multitude of conditions that exist in such an environment. In this paper, the reliability of weight loss, linear polarization resistance (LPR), electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), electrochemical noise (EN), and externally mounted hydrogen probes for monitoring inhibitor performance in oil and gas pipelines is investigated.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.275 · 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