MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900571192 · doi:10.5006/c2018-11245

Abrasive Blasting Surface Preparation – Does the Pipeline Coating Industry Really Understand It?

2018· article· en· W2900571192 on OpenAlexaff
Shiwei Guan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMetal Alloys Wear and Properties
Canadian institutionsCanadian General-Tower (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRock blastingCoatingAbrasivePipeline (software)Materials scienceMetallurgyPipeline transportComposite materialEngineeringMechanical engineeringGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The author uses three recent international pipeline projects as examples, to illustrate that the typical surface profile height and abrasive blast cleaning requirements in today’s coating standards and specifications have not been sufficient to define the adequate level of the abrasive blasting in order to provide wetting and adhesion of the pipe coatings to the pipe substrate, partially causing the pipeline coating disbondment. Adhesion mechanisms, limitations of the current standards of defining surface profile, and recommendations for future pipeline coating projects are discussed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMetal Alloys Wear and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207