MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063087444 · doi:10.1115/ipc2012-90192

Determination of Significant Risk Threshold of Upstream Pipelines

2012· article· en· W2063087444 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hongfang Lü

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)Benchmark (surveying)Computer scienceRisk assessmentRisk analysis (engineering)Index (typography)Risk managementUpstream (networking)Pipeline transportReliability engineeringEngineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pipeline risk assessment has been part of the integrity management in the industry in today’s environment of increasing regulatory and public oversight. One of the widely used risk assessment method is the score index method. This method has been used for more than two decades and is widely accepted in the pipeline industry. The input data is relatively easy to acquire. The method provides details of mitigation options and relative risk values. However, this method does not provide the simple decision making process. In risk management, it is always the question to choose the most cost effective mitigation option to use limited resources. On the basis of score index risk assessment method, a method to correlate the probability of failure score with actual failure probability, and leak impact factor score with actual failure consequence in monetary units has been developed. This method applies the monetarily calibrated consequence factor to the probability of failure to obtain a normalized and calibrated risk in monetary unit. By comparing the cost of an estimated mitigation program, the decision can be made. Recent regulations in Canada require that risk assessment must have a method to determine the significant risk threshold. Even though some industrial standards have some recommended methods or benchmark data for failure probability, there is no published method to determine the threshold of high risk. Some pipeline companies have the in-house personnel to develop an advanced method to meet regulation requirement. However, many pipeline companies need to have a practical and economical method to determine the significant risk threshold to meet regulation requirement, and to effectively allocate resources. This paper develops a method to determine the significant risk threshold that can be used as a decision-making criterion in pipeline risk management. This process is practical for industrial application, especially for upstream companies where operators have limited resources for advanced risk assessment. A case study is presented using this method based on upstream pipelines.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207