MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993050882 · doi:10.1115/ipc2006-10433

Modeling Damage Prevention Effectiveness Based on Industry Practices and Regulatory Framework

2006· article· en· W1993050882 on OpenAlexaff
Qishi Chen, Kimbra Davis, Curtis Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 2: Integrity Management; Poster Session; Student Paper Competition · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFault tree analysisRisk analysis (engineering)Reliability (semiconductor)Government (linguistics)Computer scienceReliability engineeringComputer securityRisk managementFault (geology)EngineeringPreventive maintenancePipeline transportBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Managing actual or perceived risk in today’s environment is the concern of every industry and government. For oil and gas pipelines, prevention of mechanical interference by excavation equipment is one of the most effective ways to reduce incidents and to manage operating risk. A common technique used to manage reliability, risk and safety is the fault tree method. In general terms, a fault tree model identifies important events and combinations of events, with respect to system reliability, to estimate the likelihood of system failures. When applied to damage prevention, the fault tree forms a logical representation of the manner in which the combined fault effects associated with individual prevention measures could lead to a hypothesized failure of an operator’s damage prevention program. The model presented in this paper considers performance factors such as signage, patrols, one-call practices, excavation techniques, public awareness programs and new damage prevention technologies.

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)0.004
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 2: Integrity Management; Poster Session; Student Paper CompetitionSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207