MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970493804 · doi:10.1115/1.3094027

A Stochastic Model for Piping Failure Frequency Analysis Using OPDE Data

2009· article· en· W1970493804 on OpenAlexafffund
Xian‐Xun Yuan, Mahesh D. Pandey, Jovica Riznic

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Safety CommissionUniversity of WaterlooToronto Metropolitan University
FundersCanadian Nuclear Safety CommissionUniversity Network of Excellence in Nuclear Engineering
KeywordsPipingProbabilistic logicPoint estimationStatistical modelFailure rateNuclear power plantComputer scienceProcess (computing)Reliability engineeringTask (project management)EngineeringStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accurate estimation of piping failure frequency is an important task to support the probabilistic risk assessment and risk-informed in-service inspection of nuclear power plants. Although probabilistic models have been reported in the literature to analyze the piping failure frequency, this paper proposes a stochastic point process model that incorporates both a time dependent trend and plant-specific (or cohort) effects on the failure rate. A likelihood based statistical method is proposed for estimating the model parameters. A case study is presented to analyze the Class 1 pipe failure data given in the OPDE Database.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and PowerSame topicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering DesignFrench-language works237,207