MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409497611 · doi:10.5006/c2025-00555

A Statistical Approach to Rectifier Groundbed Remaining Service Life Prediction

2025· article· en· W4409497611 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew J. Barrett, Dylan Bolch, William Maize, Tony da Costa

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsATCO (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceService (business)Service lifeRectifier (neural networks)Statistical analysisReliability engineeringArtificial intelligenceStatisticsEngineeringMathematicsBusinessArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The rectifier groundbed is a key component of an Impressed Current Cathodic Protection (ICCP) system in that it is consumed over time. The rate of consumption is based on many contributing factors including anode mass and material, surrounding soil properties, seasonal effects and rectifier operating conditions. Accurately forecasting the remaining service life of an anode groundbed has proven challenging for pipeline operators in the past, faced with the decision to replace the groundbed well before the anodes have been consumed or waiting until groundbed failure and risking a time period where the pipeline is no longer cathodically protected. We present a statistical approach to this problem, using remote-monitoring data and advanced data analytics techniques. A machine learning model is developed to classify rectifier readings as in their nominal phase or approaching the end of service life. We present and discuss what factors have the most influence on the model and discuss wider applicability on a large scale of rectifier datasets.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.251
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207