MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321683188 · doi:10.1109/icgpr.2014.6970448

Pipe Penetrating Radar inspection of large diameter underground pipes

2014· article· en· W2321683188 on OpenAlexaffabout
Csaba Ékes, B. Neducza, Péter Takács

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGround-penetrating radarRadarWater pipeSinkholeGeologyBeddingCorrosionGeotechnical engineeringMarine engineeringForensic engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringComposite materialMechanical engineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pipe Penetrating Radar (PPR) is the underground, in-pipe application of GPR, a non-destructive testing method that can detect defects and cavities within and outside mainline diameter (>18 in / 450mm) non-ferrous (concrete, PVC, HDPE, vitrified clay, etc.) underground pipes [1, 2]. The method uses two or more high frequency GPR antennae carried by a robot into underground pipes. The radar data are transmitted to the surface and are recorded together with the output from CCTV (and optionally sonar and laser). Proprietary software analyzes the data and pinpoints defects or cavities within and outside the pipe. Thus the testing can identify existing pipe and pipe bedding symptoms that can be addressed to prevent catastrophic failure due to sinkhole development and can provide useful information about the remaining service life of the pipe. This paper describes the Vancouver, WA, USA project where PPR was used to inspect two main line diameter (21 - 36 inch) pipes and was successful in quantitatively determine the amount of H2S corrosion in these critical interceptors.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207