MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2617438942 · doi:10.1139/er-2017-0003

Canada’s federal database is inadequate for the assessment of environmental consequences of oil and gas pipeline failures

2017· article· en· W2617438942 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
KeywordsPipeline transportJurisdictionPipeline (software)DatabaseHazardous wasteFossil fuelEnvironmental scienceBusinessEngineeringEnvironmental resource managementComputer scienceWaste managementEnvironmental engineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, the National Energy Board (NEB) regulates inter-provincial oil and gas pipelines and maintains historical records that contain data on oil and gas pipeline accidents; these data include information about operators, the accidents’ cause, and the resulting consequences. New inter-provincial pipelines are being built in Canada to transport fuels, but no comprehensive statistical analysis of the risk to environmental receptors exists. This study assesses the quality and quantity of NEB pipeline failure data available in Canada with a focus on environmental consequences and investigates differences between Canada and a more thoroughly studied jurisdiction, the United States, in tracking accident data. The discrepancies in agencies’ jurisdiction and regulated mileage are analyzed, along with reporting criteria and initial recording year. The level of detail provided by the two agencies is compared, identifying deficiencies in data collection. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) regulates 76% of pipelines in the United States, whereas the NEB only monitors 9% of pipelines in Canada. PHMSA provides four databases that include accidents from the 1980s for most pipelines and from 2011 for liquefied natural gas facilities; the NEB database includes accident data starting from 2008, which derive primarily from transmission pipelines. Information about environmental consequences is quite detailed in the US database, which reports 21 descriptive fields, whereas in Canada only two NEB database fields describe environmental outcomes. Moreover, dissimilarities in accident reporting criteria prevent the combination of data from the two agencies. Consequently, the NEB database does not allow for statistically robust and system wide analysis of the environmental consequences of pipeline failures in Canada. Furthermore, to calculate failure rates (annual number of accidents per kilometre of pipeline) for regulated pipelines, annual total mileage estimates are required. Mileage per year is provided by PHMSA for gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipelines starting from 1984, and for hazardous liquid pipelines from 2004; the NEB provides annual mileage from 2010, a shorter period of record. The Canadian federal agencies are encouraged to improve accuracy and consistency in recording past accidents and in collecting pipeline data, with the goal of preventing and minimizing future pipeline failures.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.245 · 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