MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2561801515 · doi:10.1115/ipc2016-64173

Risk Profiling for the Pipeline Industry: Application of Best Practices From the Aviation Industry

2016· article· en· W2561801515 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lorna Harron, Kimberley Turner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk managementRisk analysis (engineering)AviationRisk assessmentAsset (computer security)Corporate governanceBusinessEngineeringComputer scienceFinanceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Enbridge partnered with Aerosafe Risk Management to perform risk profiling to assist strategic planning activities aimed at safety performance improvement. A preliminary risk report, the first step towards an Industry Risk Profile (IRP) was the outcome. An IRP presents a strategic view of the risks within an industry sector at a point in time, requiring input from many stakeholders including operators, associations, and regulators. Most importantly, an IRP facilitates joint solutioning of risks to achieve improved safety performance and industry wide risk reduction. The preliminary risk report considered Enbridge data in addition to publically available information from associations and regulators to produce a preliminary risk report. The data gathering process considered information related to governance and oversight, compliance regime, assurance model, asset capabilities, industry operating environment, industry safety profile, and operator profile. Results of the preliminary risk report are shared in this paper, with applicability to other operators, associations, and regulators. Providing the first building block of the IRP, these results focus on how organizations like Enbridge who aspire to participate or lead industry level reform or change can use the data to reshape their corporate risk based decision making. This approach, if adopted more broadly across the industry could provide as far reaching results as those seen in the aviation, military and transport sectors. The IRP methodology and approach developed by Aerosafe in the mid-2000s, is now well entrenched in the aviation industry and is used by regulators and industry alike to create a pathway for industry level risk reduction and notable reform. The use of an IRP is considered best practices by the aviation, transport and regulatory sectors in the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and after being in use in some sectors of aviation around the globe since 2008, the results are now measurable. These results provide a strong and clear link between safety performance improvement and the management and reduction of the industry risk profile.

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)0.109
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.135
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1090.135
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0190.008
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0180.013
Open science0.0080.012
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207