MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783941033 · doi:10.1115/cec2000-4605

Sanitary Welding Standards

2000· article· en· W2783941033 on OpenAlexaff
Richard E. Avery

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Management Systems
Canadian institutionsNickel Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeldingGas tungsten arc weldingArc weldingEngineeringWaste managementMetallurgyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Austenitic stainless steel tube and pipe systems are a vital part of today’s sanitary (hygienic) processing facilities. Product contact surface welds in the tubular systems usually cannot be ground or conditioned, so it is essential that the as-welded surfaces are suitable for cleaning-in-place (CIP). The American Welding Society AWS Dl8 Committee was formed in respond to the request by the 3-A Sanitary Standards Committee for help in preparing welding standards for use in the manufacture and construction of dairy and food product processing plants. The 3-A Sanitary Standards Committees develop and promulgate sanitary design standards for dairy and food processing, packaging and handling equipment and systems. AWS D18.1:1999 Specification for Welding of Austenitic Stainless Steel Tube and Pipe Systems in Sanitary (Hygienic) Applications developed covers the requirements for gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW) or TIG welding as it is also known, of austenitic stainless steel tube and pipe 1/4 in. (6 mm) diameter and larger. Sanitary processing systems is intended to include those systems handling products for human and animal consumption. Such products include dairy, meat, poultry, vegetable, beverage, and other products consumed by humans and animals. The paper also includes design and operation guidelines that have proven useful to engineers and users of austenitic stainless steel piping systems. Paper published with permission.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0680.058

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicQuality and Management SystemsFrench-language works237,207