MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106305796 · doi:10.5006/1.3287711

Comparison of Laboratory Methodologies to Evaluate Corrosion Inhibitors for Oil and Gas Pipelines

2003· article· en· W2106305796 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
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCorrosion Behavior and Inhibition
Canadian institutionsDevon Energy (Canada)Natural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrosionPipeline transportPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceMetallurgyMaterials scienceForensic engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experiments were carried out using a loop in three fields (gassy-oil, oily-gas, and oil-transmission pipes) under 17 operating conditions, using six inhibitors (three continuous and three batch). Laboratory experiments were carried out under field conditions using the same inhibitors at the same concentrations. Four types of data were used to compare the laboratory and field results: general corrosion rates, pitting corrosion rates, percentage inhibition calculated from general corrosion rates, and percentage inhibition calculated from pitting corrosion rates. Based on the comparison, the following laboratory methodologies were ranked: wheel test, bubble test, static test, rotating disc electrode (RDE), rotating cylinder electrode (RCE), jet impingement (JI), and rotating cage (RC).

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)0.001
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.293 · 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