MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973671232 · doi:10.3152/147154606781765156

Pipeline risk assessment and risk acceptance criteria in the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil

2006· article· en· W1973671232 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueImpact Assessment and Project Appraisal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk assessmentRisk analysis (engineering)Pipeline (software)Pipeline transportGas pipelineEnvironmental planningEnvironmental risk assessmentBusinessEnvironmental resource managementComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceEngineeringComputer securityPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the use of risk assessment (RA) for analyzing the environmental suitability of natural gas pipelines and highlights RA's linkages with environmental impact assessment. The paper contends that RA is an essential tool when assessing the suitability of gas pipelines, and that risks associated with such proposed activities should be used as fundamental criteria to determine route selection. By doing so, fatality risks related to pipeline failures can be reduced. The paper also contends that the risk acceptance criteria adopted by the State of Sao Paulo are overly permissive when compared to other criteria used around the world. Therefore, the State should consider revising and strengthening its risk acceptance criteria to be up-to-date with international standards.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.361 · 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