MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The evolution of offshore survey technology for pipeline inspections

2013· article· en· W2108631845 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Hoggarth, Juan Carballini

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Fredericton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubmarine pipelinePipeline (software)Computer scienceMarine engineeringPetroleum engineeringEngineeringGeologyOceanographyOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The offshore survey industry continues to develop and introduce new technologies. Significant advancements in a variety of technologies have led to the successful introduction of AUV's for a variety of surveying roles. However their impact on the “high end” pipeline inspection is not yet complete. Can AUV's become the standard acquisition platform for pipeline and other inspection surveys or are the challenges and obstacles that prevent the uptake and adoption of AUV technology simply too great? There are now component technologies that, when properly constructed, enable the use of AUV technology for many more survey and inspection related activities. This includes the collection, processing and management of the survey sensor data sets. AUV's are now capable of carrying such sensors as the latest high resolution multibeam sonars, synthetic aperture sonars, high definition cameras and acoustic doppler current profilers. With this array of available acoustic sensors we can expect AUV's to be used for an increasing number of pipeline inspection surveys and other hydrographic survey missions. This increased usage will likely require new data processing workflows and techniques, especially in consideration of the huge data volumes that will require processing once the vehicle returns to its parent ship and data is downloaded. This paper will explore these processing workflows and highlight the challenges and benefits with a view to addressing some key questions and promoting discussion on the future use of AUVs.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207