Short Term Hydrotechnical Risk Control Measures Used During the Implementation of Watercourse Pipe Replacement Projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pipeline watercourse crossings are designed according to the best available industry/technical standards at the time of construction. Older pipeline systems were typically installed without the benefit of modern hydrotechnical engineering practices with little or no allowance for ongoing fluvial processes. The level of protection at specific crossings can deteriorate such that a relatively small flood (i.e. 1:10 year) can pose a significant integrity threat. The hazards associated with maintaining an existing crossing may not be acceptable for the continued safe operation of a pipeline; therefore, a pipe replacement may be required. The designing, planning, permitting, funding, contracting and construction of any pipe replacement option can require considerable time to implement. In most watercourses in Canada and the United States this means that the pipeline at risk, but not in an emergency situation, will likely go through at least one spring freshet and/or other seasonal peak flow event(s) prior to implementation of the pipe replacement project. Four examples of short term risk control measures are discussed for river crossings in and around central and northern British Columbia, Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".