MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2595044018 · doi:10.5006/c2011-11263

Development of a Test Protocol for the Evaluation of Underdeposit Corrosion Inhibitors in Large Diameter Crude Oil Pipelines

2011· article· en· W2595044018 on OpenAlexaff
Jenny Been, Trevor Place, Brendan Crozier, Michael Mosher, Tom Ignacz, Jeff Soderberg, Colin Cathrea, Michael Holm, Darin Archibald

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Properties and Failure Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsAlberta Innovates
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrosionPipeline transportPetroleum engineeringProtocol (science)PetroleumTest (biology)Crude oilMaterials scienceComputer scienceMetallurgyEnvironmental scienceEngineeringGeologyMedicineEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pipelines carrying heavy crude oil may be subject to corrosion caused by deposition of sediments, a sludge containing oil, water, and bacteria in a particulate matrix. A standard testing protocol was developed with the participation of five inhibitor vendors. The test protocol includes inhibitor evaluations based on (1) Filming Effectiveness, (2) Partitioning Studies, (3) Sludge Corrosivity and Inhibitor Tests, and (4) Bacterial Kill Studies. The results of the different tests and the relevance of each test with regard to the application are discussed. A successful bacterial kill test approach was established. Initial exposure tests of coupons covered with inhibited sludge in oil are most representative of the pipeline environment, but results were variable. Improvements to the test procedure are presented and explored.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMaterial Properties and Failure MechanismsFrench-language works237,207