MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333047135 · doi:10.1115/ipc2010-31395

Detection of Active Corrosion From a Comparison of ILI Runs

2010· article· en· W2333047135 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

Venue2010 8th International Pipeline Conference, Volume 1 · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsDesjardins
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrosionPipeline transportPipeline (software)Integrity managementYield (engineering)Line (geometry)Computer scienceMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceReliability engineeringEngineeringMetallurgyMathematicsEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Repeated in-line inspections (ILI) of transmission pipelines have been used for many years to estimate corrosion rates. However, the calculation of a corrosion rate from a direct comparison of ILI anomalies is often dominated by the ILI measurement error. As an alternative to assessing a corrosion rate, it may be possible to use repeated in-line inspections to simply detect the presence of active corrosion. This paper presents the application of various statistical measures to detect active corrosion with a high-level of confidence. From a pipeline integrity management perspective, this method will enable the operator to address each location where there is a high probability of active corrosion. Furthermore, despite there being no explicit calculation of corrosion rates, the advantage of the method is that it can yield an upper bound on the corrosion rate of anomalies left unexcavated on the pipeline.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.759

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.252 · 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