MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2561056267 · doi:10.1115/ipc2016-64503

Long Term (1970 to 2015) Trending of the Nine Prescriptive Pipeline Threats

2016· article· en· W2561056267 on OpenAlexaff
Jenny Jing Chen, Dan Williams, Keith Leewis, Michael S. Barnum

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsDynamic Systems Analysis (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)Hazardous wasteForensic engineeringTerm (time)Pipeline transportEngineeringComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Reliability engineeringComputer securityBusinessMechanical engineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the 1970s, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has collected and published pipeline failure incident data. Operators are required to report pipeline incidents and provide the apparent cause of failures. PHMSA and ASME (B31.8S for gas and B31.4 for liquids) identify and group these failures into nine broad categories and sub-classify them into three clusters by their time-based behavior. Technical advancements in pipe manufacturing, fabrication, construction, operation, inspection, monitoring, maintenance, rehabilitation and regulation have resulted in a decrease in incidents for many of these failure causes. This paper presents a statistical trending analysis of the failure incidents for each of the nine threats. The multi-year trending of these incident metrics over the last 40+ years will be demonstrated.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207