MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2573226053 · doi:10.1115/ipc2016-64285

Re-Introducing the Benefits of Terrain Mapping for Pipeline Routing and Design

2016· article· en· W2573226053 on OpenAlexaffabout
Katherine Johnston, Betsy Waddington, Mark Leir, Corey Kenny

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsBGC Engineering (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeohazardTerrainPipeline (software)Remote sensingScale (ratio)Geologic mapRouting (electronic design automation)GeologyComputer scienceLandslideCartographyGeographyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Terrain mapping is the process of the interpretation of aerial photographs, LiDAR and satellite imagery plus field based ground truthing to delineate and characterize terrain polygons with similar surficial materials, landforms and geological processes [1]. For new pipeline projects, detailed terrain mapping is usually completed at a map scale of 1:20,000 corresponding to ground accuracy, at best, of 20 m. Although typically used to support the forestry industry in planning and developing forestry operations in British Columbia, Canada [2], and despite the rapid advancements of remote sensing technology, the art and science of terrain mapping continues to be an essential. albeit somewhat forgotten, tool for new and existing pipeline projects in a variety of terrain settings. For new pipeline projects, a quality terrain mapping product has been be used to characterize ground conditions and support the estimation of design inputs for numerous aspects of pipeline routing and design [3,4]. It is the backbone of most terrain and geohazard related tasks on a pipeline project and it is useful through many stages of a project’s development [5]. At routing and feasibility stages of a project, terrain mapping can be used to efficiently identify geohazards to avoid and to allow comparison of the terrain between different corridor options. Later on at the early design stages, terrain mapping can be used to develop and maintain a geohazard inventory to support geohazard risk assessment and design through geohazards that could not be avoided [6], delineate areas of shallow groundwater where buoyancy control and construction dewatering maybe required, help estimate soil spring parameters to support pipe stress analysis, delineate areas of shallow bedrock to support construction cost estimates and planning [8], and to identify sources of sands and gravels that maybe used for pipeline construction. This paper is intended to re-introduce the ongoing benefits of terrain mapping for new pipeline projects and describe how terrain mapping can cost-effectively support a pipeline project through its lifecycle of feasibility, design, and construction. Examples of the benefits of terrain mapping for routing and design of two proposed transmission pipelines in northern BC are presented. This work will be of interest to project managers, engineers, scientists and regulators involved with routing, design, and construction of new pipelines projects.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.172 · 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
GenreMethods

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClimate change and permafrost→French-language works237,207→