Advanced Coatings R&D for Pipelines and Related Facilities
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This workshop was held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Gaithersburg Maryland campus June 9-10, 2005 with support from the Office of Pipeline Safety of the U.S. Department of Transportation. To organize this meeting, a steering committee was assembled that was composed of 20 representatives from the pipeline industry, industry consortia, pipeline standards developing organizations, government agencies, and regulatory agencies from the US and Canada. This committee planned the agenda, identified speakers, determined the number and nature of the working groups, and helped promote attendance. The workshop had 56 registered attendees representing pipeline operators, coatings manufacturers, pipeline fabricators, pipeline industry consortia, standards developing organizations, universities, government agencies, and regulatory agencies. The workshop consisted of 14 presentations on US and Canadian standards, current research, operating experience, and failure mechanisms followed by break out into four working groups to identify, discuss, and prioritize research needs. The working groups reported their findings. The workshop concluded with a summation and tours of laboratories at NIST conducting pipeline relevant research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it