MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019426808 · doi:10.1115/ipc2012-90252

Spill Impact Assessment: Crude Oil Pipeline ERCB License Number 3353-1

2012· article· en· W2019426808 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gordon Gin, J.A. Davis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicOil Spill Detection and Mitigation
Canadian institutionsGibson Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)Environmental sciencePipeline transportCrude oilOil spillPetroleum engineeringMarine engineeringTributaryComputer scienceEngineeringEnvironmental engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gibson Energy performed a liquid pipeline spill analysis on the approximately 1 kilometre long 168.3 mm Crude Oil pipeline near the Edmonton South Terminal. This pipeline crosses a sensitive tributary that drains into the North Saskatchewan River. The pipeline is currently not in operation, however is locked in with product. This spill analysis is unique in that the pipeline is under minimal pressure with no appreciable flow rate. As a result, the objective of this analysis was to illustrate the length of time required to perform drain down at various locations along the pipeline. The Spill Analysis consisted of modeling a potential liquid release scenario for overland flow modeling of a liquid release and reports both direct and indirect High Consequence Area (HCA) impacts. Additionally, data showing spill plume extents, final volumes and other GIS data was generated for map generation. This presentation will discuss the methods, data, parameters, and results of this analysis and the next steps in providing regulators sufficient information for a comprehensive contingency plan of the Edmonton terminal.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOil Spill Detection and MitigationFrench-language works237,207