Guidelines to Conducting Threat Susceptibility and Identification Assessments of Pipelines Prior to Reactivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides guidelines to identify all threats and assess a pipeline’s susceptibility to those threats in order to select appropriate and effective mitigation, monitoring, and prevention measures prior to reactivating pipelines. The intent of this paper is to provide pipeline operators, consultants and regulatory agencies with a generic threat assessment approach that has to be customized to the pipeline-specific characteristics and conditions, and the regulatory requirements of its own jurisdiction. A literature review and authors’ experiences across the pipeline industry have identified the need for a generic, yet complete approach that guides pipeline integrity engineers in the methodologies that adequately and effectively assess threats prior to reactivation and that can be validated in a timely manner during the operations. Pipeline operators may be called on to reactivate pipelines that are facing challenges such as aging, changes in operational conditions, lack of maintenance and inconsistent integrity practices while facing constraints from increasing population density, higher pressure and flow throughput requirements of a competitive marketplace, and regulatory requirements insisting on higher levels of safety and protection of the environment. This paper was structured with the following components to assist the reader in conducting threat assessments: • Current regulations and recognized industry standards with respect to reactivating pipelines; • Definition of and differentiation between hazard and threat; • Hazard identification analysis for the known and potential situations, events and conditions; and • Threat susceptibility and identification analysis process for the known categories derived from the hazard identification process. A case study is described as an example of applying the guidelines to conduct threat susceptibility and identification assessments of a pipeline prior to its reactivation. The results from the threat susceptibility and identification assessment process can help operators, consultants and regulators in determining effective inspection, mitigation, prevention and monitoring measures.
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 | 0.045 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.017 |
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".