MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564127798 · doi:10.1115/ipc2016-64537

The Integrity of Flexible Steel Line Pipe: A Case History

2016· article· en· W2564127798 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Frank Gareau, Alex Tatarov

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)Pipeline transportLine (geometry)CorrosionComposite numberPetroleum engineeringBoundary (topology)EngineeringComputer scienceForensic engineeringMechanical engineeringMaterials scienceMetallurgyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The oil and gas industry would continue to benefit from the successful application of innovative pipeline technologies. A comparison of the installed lengths of line pipe licensed by the Alberta Energy Regulatory (AER) in 2005 and 2012 indicates that composite pipeline systems have increased by 577%; a much higher increase than other types of licensed line pipe materials. The primary driver is to address corrosion that accounts for 68% of the AER-listed pipeline failures. Effective use of new flexible steel line pipe requires application within theoretically acceptable boundaries. A case history will be discussed to highlight some of the boundary conditions for flexible steel composite line pipe. Challenges to successfully use new innovative materials include industry’s ability to characterize the composition of the fluids transported by the pipeline, to characterize the composition of the fluids that permeate through the non-metallic components in some of the composite systems, and to construct systems without damage.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207