MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W34654244 · doi:10.5006/c2001-01631

Reconfirming the Integrity of a Gas Transmission Pipeline Following an SCC Induced Incident

2001· article· en· W34654244 on OpenAlexaffabout
John D. Norris, Blaine P. Ashworth, Mark Yeomans, N. I. Uzelac

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsNova Chemicals (Canada)TransCanada (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)Materials scienceTarnishPipeline transportForensic engineeringCorrosionMetallurgyEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A 168-km (104 mi.) in-line inspection was performed on a NPS 36 in. natural gas pipeline near Edson, Alberta, Canada, which experienced a stress corrosion cracking (SCC) incident on August 8th, 1998. A liquid coupled ultrasonic crack detection ILI (in-line inspection) tool† was selected for its ability to accurately identify and size crack-like defects in pipelines1. The in-line inspection required the construction of new facilities to facilitate the in-line inspection. The in-line inspection was completed on June 22, 1999, from mainline valves 1025 to 1020. Following the analysis of the tool data, features were investigated. The ILI inspection allowed TCPL to expeditiously repair the line. Good correlation was found between the tool predictions and field measurements. Following the excavation and repair of all predicted SCC features in the section deeper than 1 mm, the line returned to full service in April, 2000.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures→French-language works237,207→