MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W204089527

RISK AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF NATURAL GAS PIPELINES IN RURAL HIGHWAY RIGHTS OF WAY

2001· article· en· W204089527 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTransportation Systems and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportPipeline (software)EngineeringDitchEconomic impact analysisTransport engineeringNatural gasUnit (ring theory)Civil engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Forensic engineeringBusinessEnvironmental engineeringWaste management
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The placement and location of hydrocarbon pipelines with respect to road geometries and cross sections can have an effect on the safety of the highway system and its users and adjacent residents, as well as operational and economic impacts on highway maintenance, construction, and modification activities. To assess these risks and impacts, the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) commissioned Bercha Engineering Limited (Bercha) to conduct an in-depth, comprehensive study directed at generating a qualitative and quantitative understanding of the implications of locating pressurized natural gas pipelines in various locations within rural road right-of-ways. The study covered four primary representative road types together with their variations in ADDT, vehicle speed, and cross section, as well as three representative pipeline sizes and pressure categories for three different pipeline locations. The three pipeline locations consisted of one in the shoulder, one below the ditch, one just inside the edge of the right-of-way, and a fourth control location where the pipeline is away from the effects of the roadway. The method for systematically quantifying the risks to the public, considering the effects of the pipeline-roadway synergy, including effects on the pipeline failure rate as well as consequences of possible failure including ignition by vehicles, was developed and applied to each of the 108 generic cases. Both individual and collective risks and their variations for each of the different combinations were evaluated, and discussed. Similarly, economic impacts, including increases in the unit cost of common maintenance, construction, and reconstruction activities for the road operators were also identified. A series of conclusions and recommendations was generated and the study was reported in detail in a comprehensive final report together with supporting appendices. Although previous studies have been done on the use of common utility and transportation corridors, no comprehensive quantiative assessment of risks and economic impacts for representative combinations of road and pipeline characteristics has appeared previously, resulting in a significant volume of new observations and information available from the work reported herein. For the convering abstract of this conference see ITRD number E201066. (A)

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)0.000
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.238 · 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