MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081918236 · doi:10.1061/41187(420)52

PPI-BoreAid: A Preliminary Design Tool for Horizontal Directional Drilling using Polyethylene Pipeline

2011· article· en· W2081918236 on OpenAlexaff
Karl Lawrence, Alireza Bayat, Mark A. Knight, Camille G. Rubeiz, Larry J. Petroff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDirectional drillingPipeline (software)Drill pipeTrenchless technologyPolyethylenePipeline transportEngineeringMechanical engineeringComputer scienceEngineering drawingDrillingMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PPI-BoreAid is a free online tool that allows users to perform preliminary pipe design analysis for polyethylene (PE) pipes installed using a horizontal directional drill (HDD). It allows users to determine suitable PE pipe dimension ratios (DR) to satisfy installation and in-service loads required in ASTM F1962 and Chapter 12 of the Handbook of Plastics Pipe Institute (PPI) Polyethylene Pipe Design, 2nd edition. During PPI-Boreaid development, several conservative aspects of the current PE pipe design methodology and PE pipe properties were noted. This paper discusses the requirement for the development of PPI-BoreAid as a preliminary PE pipe design tool, and provides suggested changes to the aforementioned documents. Sample calculations are presented to demonstrate how the new application can be used to select a suitable PE pipe for a site specific HDD project.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.006

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207