MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385888133 · doi:10.55274/r0010786

PR-351-083602-R01 Field Demonstration of Reliability Based Guidelines for Pipeline Integrity

2011· report· en· W4385888133 on OpenAlex
Desjardins, Sahney

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

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsDesjardins
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Integrity managementCorrosionRepeatabilityReliability engineeringPipeline (software)Set (abstract data type)Computer scienceField (mathematics)Phase (matter)Structural integrityEngineeringStatisticsMaterials scienceMathematicsStructural engineeringMetallurgyChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An in-depth review of the reliability framework developed by C-FER for PRCI (PR-244-05302 Guidelines for Reliability Based Pipeline Integrity Methods) was undertaken in Phase I of this project. In Phase II of this project, the guidelines were applied to a second set of inline inspection data � along with more specifically defined input parameters. Specifically, two scenarios were assessed for the corrosion data set: one scenario consisted of corrosion growth rate applied on a defect-specific basis whereas the second scenario consisted for corrosion growth rate applied on a segment-specific basis. The analysis was intended to test the method for repeatability of results as well as the sensitivity to one of the critical assumptions associated with corrosion growth rate. The results are presented in this 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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.228 · 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