MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062925694 · doi:10.1115/ipc2012-90510

An Approach to Sinkhole Prevention on Post Pipeline Construction at Trenchless Road Crossings

2012· article· en· W2062925694 on OpenAlex
Everett Clementi Wong, Greg Sasaki, James Harrison

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
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSinkholeTrenchless technologyGround-penetrating radarPipeline (software)Geotechnical engineeringMining engineeringGeologyPipeline transportForensic engineeringRadarCivil engineeringEngineeringKarstEnvironmental engineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sinkholes manifest unpredictably at road crossings long after the completion of pipeline installation. In recent pipeline projects, Alberta Clipper Expansion and Line 4 Extension, over 1200 km of NPS 36 oil pipeline was constructed across Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Over 600 road crossings were executed across these provinces utilizing standard industry crossing techniques and under a wide variety of soil conditions. Several months after construction, sinkholes appeared on roads at locations along the centerline of the newly constructed pipeline. It is hypothesized that bores which were observed to have been over-reamed, re-reamed, or had pipe pulled back, may have contributed in development of unconsolidated soil or “voids” in comparison to adjacent native subsurface soil, which then manifested into sinkholes. In other cases, the evolution of voids may have been attributed to pre-existing soil conditions. Since sinkholes pose safety concerns to the public as well as the integrity of the pipeline mitigation, control measures were taken to assess and remediate other locations prior to sinkhole manifestation. An approach to prevent sinkhole manifestation is identifying high-risk crossings, scanning for voids, and void remediation. Identification of high-risk sinkhole manifestation at crossings involved desktop evaluation which was based on: observations noted inspectors’ reports, geotechnical conditions, depth of crossings, the elevation difference between the entry and exit holes, and crossing method. Once prioritized, selected road crossings were scanned for voids using a technology called Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR), which is the focus of this paper. Ground-penetrating radar employs a system of radio waves at various frequencies directed at the subsoil. The changing velocities between consolidated and unconsolidated soil provides different views of the subsurface. Factors such as pipeline depth, soil type, and interference, played a factor in the ability to accurately scan for voids. For remediation, the injection of polyurethane foam was used. This paper describes the approach, process, accuracy factors, and findings of Ground-penetrating radar used on pipeline projects.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.289
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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207