MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144171289 · doi:10.1061/9780784413012.076

Cleaning of Pressure Pipes with Novel Technology - The Importance of Long-Term Bond

2013· article· en· W2144171289 on OpenAlexaffabout
Randall J. Cooper, Mark A. Knight

Bibliographic record

VenuePipelines 2013 · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrenchless technologyInstallationHigh pressureBondHigh pressure waterPipeline transportMaterials scienceForensic engineeringWaste managementPetroleum engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringEngineering physicsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a novel, patent-pending, "waterless" method of pressure pipe-cleaning using airborne abrasives. This new method not only removes corrosion products quickly, it leaves the pipe interior in a "ready state" for the trenchless application of spray-in-place (SIPP), cured-in-place (CIPP) and/or cement linings. It also provides pipe surface preparation and dries the pipe for superior liner bond. This paper highlights the importance of pipe cleaning and preparation in advance of installing certain pressure-pipe liners and outlines the details and limitations of this new technology. Early, promising results from a recent trenchless water main rehabilitation project in Cambridge, Ontario, showed that coal-tar coatings on ductile/cast iron pipe can be removed effectively and efficiently.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePipelines 2013Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207