MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104787325 · doi:10.1115/ipc2004-0395

Pressure Reductions and Pipeline Excavation

2004· article· en· W2104787325 on OpenAlexaff
R. I. Coote, J. Kyle Keith

Bibliographic record

Venue2004 International Pipeline Conference, Volumes 1, 2, and 3 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)ExcavationPipeline transportProcess (computing)Service (business)Computer scienceProcess industryConstruction engineeringEngineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Reliability engineeringForensic engineeringPetroleum engineeringManufacturing engineeringBusinessMechanical engineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pipeline companies often reduce the pressure while performing maintenance activities and integrity excavations on in-service pipelines. Despite this practice, pipeline design codes, regulations and industry publications offer little guidance on what factors should be considered to determine how much, if any, the pressure should be reduced from operating levels during excavation activities. Also, it is not commonly understood what level of safety is introduced with these reductions and what historical operating pressure level should be used as the basis for the reductions. A literature survey and an interview process with CEPA member companies summarized common industry practices and determined factors to be considered when assessing if and how much of a pressure reduction is appropriate while excavating an operating energy pipeline.

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)0.000
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 score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2004 International Pipeline Conference, Volumes 1, 2, and 3Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207