MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3189550497 · doi:10.1061/9780784483602.038

Innovative Overline Survey Techniques for the Water and Wastewater Industry

2021· article· en· W3189550497 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePipelines 2021 · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportReliability (semiconductor)Pipeline (software)Survey data collectionCathodic protectionIntegrity managementEngineeringProcess (computing)Computer scienceReliability engineeringForensic engineeringEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringMechanical engineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Overline survey (or indirect inspection) techniques have been developed to assess the likelihood of external corrosion on buried, coated, and cathodically protected pipelines from above ground. Proven survey technologies currently used in the oil and gas industry have significant potential within the water sector due to their ability to capture multiple integrity data sets simultaneously and increase data reliability while reducing the time and costs to collect, process, analyze, and report inspection results. For piggable pipelines, these techniques can also be used to complement data from inline inspection tools to ensure the comprehensive assessment of pipeline integrity. This paper summarizes proven innovative overline survey techniques used to assess the depth of cover, coating condition, and cathodic protection performance. Real-world examples showing the benefit of combining overline survey data with inline inspection data to improve pipeline integrity will demonstrate the potential of these techniques within the water sector.

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.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.243 · 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