MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409507450 · doi:10.5006/c2011-11024

Evaluation of Compatibility between Thermal Insulator, External Coating, and Cathodic Protection at 150°C

2011· article· en· W4409507450 on OpenAlexaff
Sankara Papavinasam, Jennifer Krausher, Pouria Ghods, O. Burkan Isgor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Analysis of Composite Materials
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCathodic protectionCompatibility (geochemistry)Materials scienceCoatingInsulator (electricity)CorrosionGalvanic anodeThermalComposite materialMetallurgyElectrochemistryChemistryElectrodePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Due to operational requirements including the production of heavy oil from oil-sands by the Steam-Assisted Gravitational Drainage (SAGD) process, the operating temperature of pipelines is increasing. Pipelines are being operated at temperatures as high as 150°C. To maintain such temperatures, the external surface of the pipeline is protected by an insulator in addition to an anticorrosion coating. All underground pipelines are further protected by cathodic protection (CP). The cathodic disbondment (CD) test is commonly used for determining compatibility between external polymeric pipeline coatings and CP. This test measures the coating disbondment caused by electrical stress. The test evaluates the ability of the coating not to loosen or disbond under the stress of the imposed cathodic potential. Several standard procedures are available to conduct the CD test at temperatures up to 65°C. The influence of various factors affecting cathodic disbondment of anticorrosion coatings below insulators was investigated at 150°C.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Analysis of Composite MaterialsFrench-language works237,207