MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900295016 · doi:10.1115/ipc2018-78405

Study on Transition of Stress Corrosion Cracking to Sharp Edge Corrosion for a Liquids Pipeline

2018· article· en· W2900295016 on OpenAlexaff
Jiajun Liang, Ziqiang Dong, Mengshan Yu, Mariko Dela Rosa, Gurwinder Nagra

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrosionMaterials scienceStress corrosion crackingStress (linguistics)CrackingMetallurgyEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionEnvironmental stress crackingCrack closureForensic engineeringComposite materialFracture mechanicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although stress corrosion cracking (SCC) growth is attributed to the synergistic effects of stress and corrosion, these two factors can just as easily become competing mechanisms, with stress cycles driving growth (hydrogen, the by-product of corrosion, may facilitate the growth), and corrosion working to blunt the crack tip and arrest growth. It follows that reducing the maximum pressure and cycling severity can slow down the crack growth or even stop it, and aggressive corrosion can further blunt the sharp crack tip. The Authors have observed, on a particular Polyethylene (PE) tape coated pipeline, instances where SCC has exhibited a propensity to corrode and convert into sharp edge corrosion. This is attributed to the combined effects of limited corrosion protection and low stresses. The focus of the paper is to assist operators in recognizing this phenomenon and integrate lessons learned into pipeline integrity management strategies.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207