MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317773672 · doi:10.4043/23790-ms

PIRAM: Pipeline Response to Ice Gouging

2012· article· en· W2317773672 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan Phillips, J. Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenueOTC Arctic Technology Conference · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsCentre For Cold Ocean Resources Engineering
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)KeelFinite element methodMarine engineeringSeabedEngineeringComputer scienceStructural engineeringGeologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Pipeline Ice Risk Assessment & Mitigation JIP (PIRAM) developed aset of engineering models and design procedures for implementation intoindustry best practices for risk mitigation and protection of pipelineinfrastructure from ice keel loading. The models established the pipelinemechanical behaviour in response to ice keel load events, and assessedengineering concepts for protection and risk mitigation strategies. Improvedmethodologies for contact frequency and ice keel loads determination formedpart of the integrated model. Pipeline protection against ice gouging is overviewed. A review of subgougeresponse and physical model tests provided a basis for refinement of threedimensional continuum finite element analyses of steady state gouging includingthe implementation of an effective stress based soil plasticity constitutiveroutine. A fully coupled ice, seabed and pipeline interaction model is used tocalibrate a simpler pipeline design approach for design purposes. Thestructural model, improved by considering 3D interaction effects, comparesstrains within the pipeline to those from continuum analyses and from physicalmodel tests. The PIRAM pipeline model provides the engine for the probabilisticassessment of pipeline cover depth using a GIS-based decision-support-systemfor route planning.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.222
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOTC Arctic Technology ConferenceSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207