MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974833194 · doi:10.1115/ipc2012-90370

Analysis of Historical Failure Rates to Improve Risk Algorithms

2012· article· en· W1974833194 on OpenAlexaff
Guy Desjardins, Kar Mun Cheng, Shahani Kariyawasam, Boon Ong, Pauline Kwong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)Desjardins
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)Benchmark (surveying)Computer scienceRisk assessmentReliability engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Risk managementFailure rateAlgorithmData miningEngineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of its ongoing continuous improvement efforts, TransCanada has analyzed the system-wide historical failure data to understand trends and benchmark risk algorithms. The analysis of historical in-service and hydrostatic-test failures is a good diagnostic tool to assess threats to the pipeline system. This knowledge and understanding can be used to build risk algorithms. Quantification of failure rates also enables risk values among different threats and along the pipeline to be benchmarked appropriately. This paper focuses on the assessment of the expected failure frequency of the pipeline to SCC and corrosion.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207