MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408627118 · doi:10.5006/mp2023_62_9-40

AC Mitigation Design Considerations for Pipeline Facilities

2023· article· en· W4408627118 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

VenueMaterials performance · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical Fault Detection and Protection
Canadian institutionsAlberta EnergyShared Services Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)EngineeringConstruction engineeringForensic engineeringPetroleum engineeringSystems engineeringEnvironmental scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alternating current (AC) interference between co-located pipelines and high-voltage AC powerlines can result in safety hazards to personnel under powerline steady-state and fault conditions. High voltages can be present via electromagnetic coupling and currents discharging into the earth from the powerline structures. This can result in serious injury or death to any person in contact with any aboveground metallic appurtenance electrically continuous with the pipe. This article discusses the factors to consider when designing AC mitigation for pipeline facilities, including layout, isolation, fencing, and ground conditions. Also discussed are different mitigation strategies including gradient control grids, ensuring electrical continuity, and grounding.

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 score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.205 · 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