MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136607108 · doi:10.1115/1.2902281

Reliability-Based Design and Assessment Standards for Onshore Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines

2009· article· en· W2136607108 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportPipeline (software)Reliability (semiconductor)EngineeringNatural gasRisk analysis (engineering)Natural gas industrySafety standardsConstruction engineeringForensic engineeringReliability engineeringBusinessMechanical engineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Onshore pipelines have traditionally been designed with a deterministic stress-based methodology. The changing operating environment has, however, imposed many challenges to the pipeline industry, including heightened public awareness of risk, more challenging natural hazards, and increased economic competitiveness. To meet the societal expectation of pipeline safety and enhance the competitiveness of the pipeline industry, significant efforts have been spent for the development of reliability-based design and assessment (RBDA) methodology. This paper will briefly review the technology development in the RBDA area and the focus will be on the progresses in the past years in standard development within the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and the Canadian Standard Association (CSA) organizations.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.270 · 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