MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409486158 · doi:10.5006/c2022-17833

Applying Machine Learning Techniques to Identify and Predict Behavior of Rectifier and Groundbed State Change

2022· article· en· W4409486158 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew J. Barrett, Will Maize, Tony da Costa

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRectifier (neural networks)State (computer science)Machine learningArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We explore how rectifier voltage and current measurements can inform pipeline engineers and technicians on the health, performance and operation of their cathodic protection (CP) assets, and predict the future operation of existing and newly installed cathodic protection systems. We leverage years of data from monitoring units installed on CP rectifiers combined with site specific details describing the site and its CP system provided by pipeline operators to train a machine learning model. The study includes current and historical data from hundreds of unique rectifier locations across Canada which have been historically monitored using a remote monitoring unit (RMU). RMU readings are analyzed and grouped by long term resistance trends. Contextual data is collected for each site. This data describes the cathodic protection relevant details of the site, including details of the pipe, rectifier, groundbed and soil. A machine learning model has been developed which accepts the contextual data associated with the rectifier and will predict the long-term rectifier resistance trend.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImbalanced Data Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207