MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009501768 · doi:10.5006/c2019-13187

Interpretation of Electrical Codes for Cathodic Protection Installations

2019· article· en· W3009501768 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matthew Viveiros, Stephen B. Gibson, N. Melendez

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsCameco (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCathodic protectionInterpretation (philosophy)Materials scienceComputer scienceElectrical engineeringEngineeringElectrodeElectrochemistryPhysicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cathodic protection (CP) systems are often a vital component of integrity management programs for oil sands facilities. The electrical components of these systems must be designed and installed in accordance with regional electrical codes, such as the Canadian Electrical Code (CEC) or the National Electrical Code (NEC). The CEC and NEC include limited direction on the electrical requirements for CP systems. This paper examines installations of typical CP components and suggests ways in which the CEC and NEC can be interpreted. It is demonstrated that interpretation of electrical requirements for CP systems can be difficult. To help improve compliance and understanding, future revisions of these codes should provide additional guidance for the design and installation of CP systems.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207