MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2354448557

Methods for Assessment of Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipe

2003· article· en· W2354448557 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chun Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sichuan University · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrosionStructural engineeringEngineeringPipeline (software)Pipeline transportGeotechnical engineeringForensic engineeringMaterials scienceMetallurgyMechanical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The corrosion of pipe commonly appears during the pipe's long working time.The burst of corroded defects is the primary failure form of pipe.In the paper,the corrosion types was divided into general,local and pit corrosion according to defect's feature.The plastic limit carrying capacity of remaining strength of corroded pipe was analysed by use of twin shear stress criterion. The difference of condition between the local and the blast test of pipeline was considered in the model. Then, the methods and steps for graded assessment of remaining strength of pipe with general or local or pit defect was advanced respectively.Each assessment level provides a balance between conservation,the amount of information required for the evaluation, the skill of the personnel performing the assessment, and the complexity of analysis being performed.In terms of results of blast test of pipe conducted in NOVA company of Canada,the mothod is more close to engineering practice than the recommended practice in the ASME B31G and the API579 of America.

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)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sichuan UniversitySame topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207