MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1485656122 · doi:10.1002/9781119019213.ch41

Integrity Management of Pipeline Facilities

2015· other· en· W1485656122 on OpenAlexaff
Keith Leewis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsDynamic Systems Analysis (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntegrity managementPipeline (software)Pipeline transportPlan (archaeology)EngineeringHazardous wasteStructural integrityRisk analysis (engineering)Operations managementWaste managementBusinessMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pipeline facilities in the design codes are generally considered to be the high-pressure pipe above- and belowground, inside the fence and not the rotating pumps and compressor equipment. Integrity management is a worthwhile investment of energies. The process minimizes business risks associated with accidents and loss of production. An integrity management program for gas pipelines and facilities or liquids pipelines and facilities, including storage tanks, is required to have the five plans as specified in ASME B31.8S: integrity management plan, performance plan, communications plan, management of change plan, and quality control plan. Hazardous liquid pipeline facilities have increased complexity especially if products are shipped in batches. Risk reduction is achieved by avoiding harming the people or environment near the probable incident location. There are four accepted integrity assessment methodologies: pressure testing, in-line inspection (ILI), direct assessment, and guided wave standards for an external estimate of wall loss and magnetic tomography.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOffshore Engineering and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207