MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995600440 · doi:10.1115/ipc2010-31614

The New CSA Standard for Leak Detection

2010· article· en· W1995600440 on OpenAlexaffabout
Don Scott, Ulli Pietsch

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaTransCanada (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportSoftwarePipeline (software)Computer sciencePetroleum industryLeak detectionLeakTask (project management)Task forceSoftware engineeringComputer securityEngineering managementEngineeringOperating systemSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Standards and Recommended Practices require periodic updating so they represent current technology and industry practices. Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Z662 “Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems” contains Annex E that covers software-based leak detection for liquid hydrocarbon pipelines. The CSA Technical Committee determined that is was time to update Annex E. A Task Force of industry experts and regulators met over a period of 18 month to draft a new Annex E. This paper outlines some of the significant features of the new Annex and where possible does a comparison with the similar section in American Petroleum Institute’s API 1130 which covers recommended practice for software based leak detection in the US. A pipeline operator should consider using both Annex E and API 1130 in the implementation and use of a software-based leak detection system. The CSA Task Force did not want to copy and modify API 1130 to provide a new Annex E, so both documents provide necessary information.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.025

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207