MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326190330 · doi:10.1115/ipc2012-90423

PIRAM: Pipeline Ice Risk Assessment and Mitigation Program Overview

2012· article· en· W2326190330 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan Phillips, Tony King, Jim Bruce

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsCentre For Cold Ocean Resources Engineering
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKeelPipeline (software)Risk managementRisk assessmentMarine engineeringRidgeEngineeringPipeline transportEnvironmental scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Civil engineeringComputer scienceGeologyMechanical engineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Pipeline Ice Risk Assessment & Mitigation JIP (PIRAM) developed a set of engineering models and design procedures for implementation into industry best practices for risk mitigation and protection of pipeline infrastructure from ice keel loading. The models established the pipeline mechanical behaviour in response to ice keel load events, and assessed engineering concepts for protection and risk mitigation strategies. Improved methodologies for contact frequency and ice keel loads determination formed part of the integrated model. This paper presents an overview of this multiyear program and examples of the application of the models in pipeline burial depth assessment in pressure ridge ice gouged seabeds.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.005

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207