MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W83280482 · doi:10.5006/c2005-05643

Predicting Internal Pitting Corrosion of Oil and Gas Pipelines: Review of Corrosion Science Models

2005· article· en· W83280482 on OpenAlexaff
Sankara Papavinasam, R. Winston Revie, Alex Doiron

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCorrosion Behavior and Inhibition
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrosionPipeline transportPitting corrosionMaterials sciencePetroleum engineeringMetallurgyFossil fuelEnvironmental scienceForensic engineeringEngineeringWaste managementEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract One significant factor in the degradation of pipelines used for oil and gas production is internal pitting corrosion. A corrosion scientist typically assumes parameters influencing pitting corrosion, conducts laboratory experiments to understand the extent and influence of these parameters on corrosion rates, develops theoretical explanations (based on corrosion kinetics and/or thermodynamics), and finally integrates the influence of these parameters to develop a prediction model. This paper reviews the merits and demerits of corrosion science prediction models.

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)0.001
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations18
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCorrosion Behavior and InhibitionFrench-language works237,207