MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385887430 · doi:10.55274/r0010868

PR-453-134504-R02 Pipeline On-Bottom Stability Software Upgrade Milestone II

2016· report· en· W4385887430 on OpenAlexaff
Kourosh Abdolmaleki, Andrew Rawlinson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsIntecsea (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationTable (database)MilestoneComputer scienceRelation (database)Software engineeringScope (computer science)SoftwareWork (physics)Process (computing)Pipeline (software)DatabaseEngineeringProgramming languageArchaeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scope of work for phase I of PR-453-134504 included implementation of the Verley and Lund [1] clay soil model in Level 2 of the PRCI on-bottom stability (OBS) software. Throughout the implementation process, a number of apparent discrepancies between the code and the documentation in relation to the pipe-soil interaction (PSI) model were identified and raised with PRCI. In Phase 2 INTECSEA was tasked to formalize these observations and provide more background information to PRCI for further clarification. The execution strategy was to host a series of meetings with a focused group of PRCI team members to review various topics of soil model in Level 2 and prepare a technical note that captures the issues discussed. This document presents the technical note on the PSI topics and clarifies INTECSEA's suggestions for further work on this matter. A summary of the technical queries along with ITS recommendation is presented in Table 1-1. Further detail on each topic is available within the report.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1140.108

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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