MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2535836316 · doi:10.1115/ipc2000-137

Design, Development and Confirmation of a High Toughness Gas Line Pipe for Alliance Pipeline at Camrose Pipe Company

2000· article· en· W2535836316 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alex J. Afaganis, James R. Mitchell, Lorne Carlson, Alan Gilroy-Scott

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsPetroleum Technology Alliance CanadaGlenrose Rehabilitation Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharpy impact testAllianceFracture toughnessToughnessPipeline transportPipeline (software)Materials scienceFracture (geology)Structural engineeringComposite materialForensic engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through 1999, Camrose Pipe Company manufactured ∼152 km (∼45 000 tonnes) of 1067 × 11.4mm pipe for Alliance Pipeline Partnership Ltd. This section of Alliance’s pipeline was manufactured to a design whose pipe fracture toughness requirements was significantly beyond those historically manufactured in Canada and initiated a major leap in plate/pipe manufacturing toughness capability. The development of line pipe toughness in Canada culminating in this order will be profiled. Further, this high toughness design is at the far reaches of the traditional fracture arrest models. Besides the traditional Charpy energy measure, and to confirm Alliance’s confidence in their fracture arrest design, another two sets of fracture assessment tests were used on a trial and production basis: the API chevron notch drop weight tear test (CN DWTT) energy and the energy of a similar test using an Alliance notch modification. The results of these tests will be reviewed and compared.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.212 · 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
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207