Deterministic QRA Model and Implementation Experience via an Integrity Management Software Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current risk assessment practice in pipeline integrity management tends to use semi-quantitative index-based or model-based methodologies. This approach has been found to be very flexible and provide useful results for identifying high-risk areas and for prioritizing physical integrity assessments. However, as pipeline operators progressively adopt an operating strategy of continual risk reduction with a view to minimizing total expenditures within safety, environmental, and reliability constraints, the need for quantitative assessments of risk levels is becoming evident. Whereas reliability-based quantitative risk assessments can be and are routinely carried out on a site-specific basis, they require significant amounts of quantitative data for the results to be meaningful. This need for detailed and reliable data tends to make these methods unwieldy for system-wide risk assessment applications. This paper describes methods for estimating risk quantitatively through the calibration of semi-quantitative estimates to failure rates for peer pipeline systems. By applying point value probabilities to the failure rates, deterministic quantitative risk assessment (QRA) provide greater rigor and objectivity than can usually be achieved through the implementation of semi-quantitative risk assessment results. The method permits a fully quantitative approach to suit the operator’s data availability and quality, and analysis needs. The paper also discusses experiences of implementing this type of risk model in Pipeline Integrity Management System (PIMS) software and the use of and integration of data via existing pipeline geographical information systems (GIS).
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".