MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026886310 · doi:10.5006/c2019-12829

Laboratory Testing of Low Temperature Cure Liquid-Applied Coating Systems for Pipeline Maintenance

2019· article· en· W3026886310 on OpenAlexaff
Russell Draper, Jiajun Liang, Haralampos Tsaprailis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSurface Roughness and Optical Measurements
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)CoatingMaterials scienceCorrosionPipeline transportProcess engineeringForensic engineeringReliability engineeringNuclear engineeringComputer sciencePetroleum engineeringEngineeringComposite materialMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Absrract This paper describes the laboratory testing to assess the performance and curing characteristics of low temperature cure liquid-applied coating systems for pipeline maintenance. Four low temperature cure coating systems were applied to abrasively blasted steel under simulated winter field conditions. The steel substrate temperatures were maintained at 0 °C during application and curing up to the point of testing. The low temperature cured coating samples were tested in accordance with industry standards for cathodic disbondment resistance, adhesion before and after hot water immersion, impact testing and flexibility that would be representative of maintenance activities. The curing rates at low temperatures were also determined using differential scanning colorimetry (DSC). Based on the laboratory testing and curing results, it was concluded that selected coating systems were suitable for maintenance application to excavated oil and gas pipelines, when the lines are operating at temperatures as low as 0 °C.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSurface Roughness and Optical MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207