MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409507337 · doi:10.5006/c2010-10272

Obtaining Batch Corrosion Inhibitor Film Thickness Measurements Using an Optical Profiler

2010· article· en· W4409507337 on OpenAlexaff
Carlos M. Menendez, Josef Bojes, J. A. Lerbscher

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsBaker Hughes (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceCorrosionMetallurgyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Batch corrosion inhibitors are widely used for the corrosion control of production wells and pipelines in the oil and gas industry. Rules of thumb that incorporate film thickness, contact time and surface area are still commonly used to calculate the volume of batch inhibitor required for pipeline applications. Measuring the actual thickness of the inhibitor film on the metal and the impact of different variables on the film (e.g. inhibitor type, contact time, diluent type, dilution ratio, shear stress) offer the potential to provide a better understanding for optimizing the application procedure and required batch frequency. Optical profiling (or white light interferometry) has long been a standard technique for non-contact, 3D measurement of surface topography. This method has now been extended to thickness measurements of semi-transparent batch inhibitor films. In this paper, the impact of several variables (i.e. inhibitor type, contact time, diluent ratio, shear stress) on batch inhibitor films was studied using an optical profiler to advance our knowledge of batch inhibitor application techniques and to optimize batch programs (e.g. film persistency, batch frequency).

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 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 score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.828

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207