MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062283927 · doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.271

CO2 Pipeline Infrastructure – Lessons Learnt

2014· article· en· W2062283927 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Noothout, Frank Wiersma, Omar Hurtado, Doug MacDonald, Jasmin Kemper, Klaas van Alphen

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Procedia · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsSNC-Lavalin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)Pipeline transportVariety (cybernetics)Identification (biology)Set (abstract data type)Computer scienceEngineeringDatabaseData scienceOperating systemEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some 6,500 km of CO 2 pipelines have been operating for years for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) operations, primarily in the United States. Moreover, there are a number of CO 2 pipelines that are in use for CO 2 utilization (CCU) or Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) operations in Europe and the Americas. Valuable experience and lessons learned are available from these projects relevant for all phases of CO 2 pipeline projects: from early identification to execution and operation. A comprehensive set of information has been collected, evaluated and made accessible with the aim to benefit the development of future CO 2 pipelines. The resulting database shows a wide variety of characteristics among existing CO 2 pipeline projects. In addition, a Reference Manual document adds an overview of results and lessons learned and it can serve as a guide to enable access to the full set of information in the database.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.006

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations70
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy ProcediaSame topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207