MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1545378225 · doi:10.1002/9781119019213.ch08

Pipeline/Soil Interaction Modeling in Support of Pipeline Engineering Design and Integrity

2015· other· en· W1545378225 on OpenAlexaff
Shawn Kenny, Paul Jukes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)Pipeline transportGeotechnical engineeringScale (ratio)Pore water pressureEngineeringCivil engineeringEnvironmental scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter focuses on the system response elements for fully buried pipelines. The discussion addresses how engineering tools may be used to estimate the effects of geotechnical loads on buried pipelines (i.e. pipeline/soil interaction, load transfer, and soil failure mechanisms), for long-term ground movement events, and predict the pipeline mechanical response. Other important factors influencing pipeline/soil interaction events (e.g. effects of loading rate, pore water pressure, and interface behavior) are also highlighted in this chapter. Aspects of geotechnical engineering that support pipeline/soil interaction analysis are highlighted. The use of physical modeling techniques at full scale, large scale, and reduced scale, which is primarily focused on the soil mechanical response and failure mechanism, is reviewed. Guidance on how to improve the current state of practice through incremental refinement is presented. This chapter provides an overview of emerging trends in advanced numerical simulation of pipeline/soil interaction events, addressing system response.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.207 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207