MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083574828 · doi:10.1115/ipc2004-0327

A Risk Assessment Model for Pipelines Exposed to Geohazards

2004· article· en· W2083574828 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venue2004 International Pipeline Conference, Volumes 1, 2, and 3 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsBGC Engineering (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportRisk assessmentPipeline (software)TraverseTerrainRisk analysis (engineering)Risk managementEnvironmental scienceForensic engineeringGeologyEngineeringComputer scienceCivil engineeringMining engineeringPetroleum engineeringGeographyCartographyEnvironmental engineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transredes S.A. currently operates over 5,500 km of natural gas and liquids pipelines throughout Bolivia. These traverse geologically active terrain, subject to earthquakes, floods and landslides. Construction of these pipelines dates as far back as 1955, with some currently operating under conditions not foreseen at design. A quantitative risk assessment procedure was developed to rank the threats to the pipelines and target locations exposed to the highest level of risk. The objective was to implement a systematic means of prioritizing capital and maintenance activities based on risk management principles. The procedure was implemented on the OSSA-1 pipeline as part of a pilot study. This paper describes the OSSA-1 Pilot Project, with emphasis on how risk assessment procedures were customized to address the pipeline’s elevated exposure to ‘geohazards’.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.253 · 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