MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094002186 · doi:10.1115/ipc2014-33757

Probabilistic Bow-Tie Model to Predict Failure Probability of Oil and Gas Pipelines

2014· article· en· W2094002186 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportProbabilistic logicPipeline (software)PetroleumFossil fuelPetroleum engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceForensic engineeringEnvironmental scienceReliability engineeringGeologyWaste managementEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the 2013 Report Card, oil and gas pipelines of the United States of America are in poor condition. Pipelines are proved to be safer and more efficient than the other means of transportation of petroleum products. However, they have failed during their operation and sometimes their failures have caused catastrophic losses and serious injuries. Most of the pipelines are laid underground, thus their condition is very difficult to be evaluated. On the other hand, a comprehensive study of the previous works proves the lack of an integrated model on the failures of these pipelines. This paper aims to model the probability of failures based on the historical data on the incidents of oil and gas pipelines. After identification of the main sources of pipelines’ failures, historical data is used to build a Probabilistic Failures’ Bow-Tie Model for Oil and Gas Pipelines. The model will be able to recognize the potential failure sources of each pipeline and predict the probability of occurrence of the major hazards.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.199 · 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