MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104128658 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3852

IMAGING OF CORROSION PITS ON METALLIC PIPES USING A LASER SCANNER

2011· article· en· W2104128658 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Homayoun Najjaran

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScannerLaser scanningRaster scanCorrosionRaster graphicsMaterials scienceDisplacement (psychology)Nondestructive testingLaserOpticsComputer scienceComputer visionMetallurgyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the hardware and software of a laser scanning system that is used to produce 3D images of external surfaces of pipes. The images are produced in the form of 3D raster images with a resolution of up to 0.1×0.1 mm and an accuracy of 3-10 microns, depending on the desired scanning speed, to portray the corrosion pits on the pipes. The main application of the scanner is to establish patterns for calibrating nondestructive testing techniques (e.g., Remote Field Eddy Current (RFEC) and ultrasound testing that are commonly used to measure the remaining wall thickness of ductile and cast iron pipes), and also identifying the statistical characteristics of the measuring instruments utilized in those methods. The images may also be useful to scrutinize corrosion and failure mechanisms, especially when estimates of average or maximum pit depth are insufficient. The scanning system consists of a 2-DOF robot that can move a laser displacement sensor along a pipe and an instrumented rig that rotates the pipe about its axis. Rotating the pipe and moving the rangefinder along the pipe’s axis, the scanning system acquires laser measurements into a host computer to produce the image. The paper also presents the images and statistical analysis of corrosion pits of pipe samples exhumed and sandblasted for scanning.

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 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 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 score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207