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 OpenAlex
Jenny Jing Chen, Dan Williams, Keith Leewis, Michael S. Barnum

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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