MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110056219 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2019-0686

Uncertainty quantification of wall thickness of onshore gas transmission pipelines

2020· article· en· W3110056219 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Wenxing Zhou, Ji Hua Bao

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPipeline transportCorrosionReliability (semiconductor)Structural engineeringWeldingPipeline (software)CrackingRange (aeronautics)Stress (linguistics)Materials scienceGeotechnical engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringComposite materialMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study quantifies probabilistic characteristics of the wall thickness of welded pipe joints in onshore gas transmission pipelines based on about 5900 field-measured wall thicknesses collected from a pipeline system in Canada. The collected data cover a wide range of pipe nominal wall thicknesses, from 3.18 to 16.67 mm. By considering the measurement error involved in the collected wall thickness data, statistical analyses indicate that the actual-over-nominal wall thickness ratio (AONR) follows a normal distribution with a mean of 1.01 and a coefficient of variation (COV) ranging from 1.6% to 2.2% depending on the nominal pipe wall thickness. The implications of the developed AONR statistics for the reliability analysis of corroded pipe joints are investigated. This study provides key input to the reliability-based design and assessment of pipelines with respect to various threats, such as metal-loss corrosion and stress corrosion cracking.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering DesignFrench-language works237,207