MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W292755563 · doi:10.5006/c2009-09111

Development of Guidelines for the Identification of SCC Sites and the Prediction of Re-Inspection Intervals for SCC DA

2009· article· en· W292755563 on OpenAlexaff
Fraser King, Mark Piazza

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsNova Chemicals (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentification (biology)Computer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A significant amount of research and development (R&D) has been carried out on the mechanism of the stress corrosion cracking (SCC) of underground pipelines since the phenomenon was first recognized in the 1960’s. This R&D has taken the form of both laboratory-based experimental investigations and the direct measurements and observations of SCC on operating pipeline systems. Correlation of these data sets may be useful for predicting the occurrence and severity of SCC in the field. An effort is underway, co-funded by Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI), the US DOT, and pipeline companies, to consolidate the results of these various studies in the form of a set of guidelines that will assist companies in locating SCC on their systems, establishing the frequency of inspection intervals, and predicting the need for and timing for mitigation. The guidelines are being developed along mechanistic lines, and are broken down into four “stages” or “modules” representing: susceptibility to SCC, crack initiation, early-stage growth and dormancy, and crack growth to failure. A key component of the work is the validation of the guidelines developed from the R&D literature against field data. This interim report on the work describes the format of the guidelines and the progress made to date in developing guidelines and validating them against field data. Ultimately, it is hoped that these guidelines will be used in future revisions of the NACE SCC DA Recommended Practice RP-0204.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.254 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207