MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168982675 · doi:10.1193/1.1898273

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment and Retrofit of a Major Natural Gas Pipeline System: A Case History

2005· article· en· W2168982675 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dharma Wijewickreme, Douglas G. Honegger, Allen Mitchell, Trevor Fitzell

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Spectra · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsFraser HealthGolder Associates (Canada)University of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)Vulnerability (computing)Vulnerability assessmentCivil engineeringProbabilistic logicPrioritizationDirectional drillingNatural gasLiquefactionEngineeringPetroleum engineeringGeologyGeotechnical engineeringComputer scienceDrilling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The performance of pipeline systems during earthquakes is a critical consideration in seismically active areas. Unique approaches to quantitative estimation of regional seismic vulnerability were developed for a seismic vulnerability assessment and upgrading program of a 500‐km‐long natural gas pipeline system in British Columbia, Canada. Liquefaction‐induced lateral spreading was characterized in a probabilistic manner and generic pipeline configurations were modeled using finite elements. These approaches, developed during the early part of this 10‐year program, are more robust than typical approaches currently used to assess energy pipeline systems. The methodology deployed within a GIS environment provided rational means of distinguishing between seismically vulnerable sites, and facilitated the prioritization of remedial works. While ground improvement or pipeline retrofit measures were appropriate for upgrading most of the vulnerable sites, replacement of pipeline segments using horizontal directional drilling to avoid liquefiable zones were required for others.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations34
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarthquake SpectraSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207