MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084300980 · doi:10.1115/1.4000343

Bayesian Analysis of Piping Leak Frequency Using OECD/NEA Data

2010· article· en· W2084300980 on OpenAlexafffund
Min Wang, Mahesh D. Pandey, Jovica Riznic

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Safety CommissionUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Nuclear Safety CommissionUniversity Network of Excellence in Nuclear Engineering
KeywordsPipingNuclear power plantBayesian probabilityLeakFailure ratePoisson distributionLeak detectionReliability engineeringStage (stratigraphy)Bayes estimatorProbabilistic logicComputer scienceStatisticsEngineeringMathematicsArtificial intelligenceEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The estimation of piping failure frequency is an important task to support the probabilistic risk analysis and risk-informed in-service inspection of nuclear power plant systems. This paper describes a hierarchical or two-stage Poisson-gamma Bayesian procedure and applies this to estimate the failure frequency using the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development/Nuclear Energy Agency pipe leakage data for the United States nuclear plants. In the first stage, a generic distribution of failure rate is developed based on the failure observations from a group of similar plants. This distribution represents the interplant (plant-to-plant) variability arising from differences in construction, operation, and maintenance conditions. In the second stage, the generic prior obtained from the first stage is updated by using the data specific to a particular plant, and thus a posterior distribution of plan specific failure rate is derived. The two-stage Bayesian procedure is able to incorporate different levels of variability in a more consistent manner.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and PowerSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207