MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998703085 · doi:10.1115/ipc2010-31060

KOC’s Integrity Management Program for Non-Piggable Pipelines: A Case Study

2010· article· en· W1998703085 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

Venue2010 8th International Pipeline Conference, Volume 1 · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntegrity managementPipeline transportPipeline (software)Computer scienceAsset managementProcess (computing)Asset (computer security)Risk analysis (engineering)Risk managementReliability engineeringEngineeringComputer securityBusinessEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More than half of the world’s oil and gas pipelines are classified as non-piggable. Pipeline operators are becoming aware there are increased business and legislative pressures to ensure that appropriate integrity management techniques are developed, implemented and monitored for the safe and reliable operation of their pipeline asset. The Kuwait Oil Company (KOC) has an ongoing “Total Pipeline Integrity Management System (TPIMS)” program encompassing their entire pipeline network. In the development of this program it became apparent that not all existing integrity management techniques could be utilized or applied to each pipeline within the system. KOC, upon the completion of a risk assessment analysis, simply separated the pipelines into two categories consisting of piggable and non-piggable lines. The risk analysis indicated KOC’s pipeline network contains more than 200 non-piggable pipelines, representing more than 60% of their entire pipeline system. These non-piggable pipelines were to be assessed by utilizing External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) for the threat of external corrosion. Following the risk analysis, a baseline external corrosion integrity assessment was completed for each pipeline. The four-step, iterative External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) process requires the integration of data from available line histories, multiple indirect field surveys, direct examination and the subsequent post assessment of the documented results. This case study will describe the available correlation results following the four steps of the DA process for specific non-piggable lines. The results of the DA program will assist KOC in the systematic evaluation of each individual non-piggable pipeline within their system.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.273 · 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