MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041531034 · doi:10.1115/1.3110017

Target Reliability Levels for Design and Assessment of Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines

2009· article· en· W2041531034 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

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)
FundersHealth and Safety ExecutiveBP Exploration Operating Company Limited
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Pipeline transportRisk analysis (engineering)Risk assessmentSet (abstract data type)Reliability engineeringPipeline (software)Function (biology)Computer scienceNatural gasEngineeringBusinessEnvironmental engineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a set of reliability targets that can be used in the design and assessment of onshore natural gas pipelines. The targets were developed as part of a PRCI-sponsored project that aims to establish reliability-based methods as a viable alternative for pipeline design and assessment. The proposed targets are calibrated to meet risk levels that are considered widely acceptable. The proposed criteria are based on a detailed consideration of both societal and individual risk criteria. Two societal risk criteria were considered: the first based on a fixed expectation of the number of fatalities and the second based on a risk aversion function as characterized by a F/N relationship. Societal risk criteria were calibrated to match or exceed the average safety levels implied by current codes. Individual risk criteria were based on published tolerable levels. The target reliability levels corresponding to the three criteria are presented and a recommended set of targets is presented.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.268 · 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