MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2178278354 · doi:10.1115/icone17-75366

Bayesian Analysis of Piping Failure Frequency Using OECD/NEA Data

2009· article· en· W2178278354 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Wang, Mahesh D. Pandey, Jovica Riznic

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 1: Plant Operations, Maintenance, Engineering, Modifications and Life Cycle; Component Reliability and Materials Issues; Next Generation Systems · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Safety CommissionUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Nuclear Safety CommissionUniversity Network of Excellence in Nuclear Engineering
KeywordsPipingBayesian probabilityNuclear power plantProbabilistic logicFailure ratePoisson distributionReliability engineeringComputer scienceStage (stratigraphy)Bayes estimatorEngineeringStatisticsMathematicsArtificial 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 (NPPs). Although various probabilistic models have been proposed in the literature, this paper describes a hierarchical or two-stage Poisson-gamma Bayesian procedure to analyze this problem. 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. The proposed approach is applied to estimate the failure frequency using the OECD/NEA pipe leakage data for the U.S. nuclear plants.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 1: Plant Operations, Maintenance, Engineering, Modifications and Life Cycle; Component Reliability and Materials Issues; Next Generation SystemsSame topicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering DesignFrench-language works237,207