MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900071547 · doi:10.1115/ipc2018-78735

Application of In-Line Inspection and Failure Data to Reduce Subjectivity of Risk Model Scores for Uninspected Pipelines

2018· article· en· W2900071547 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.

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 institutionsTransCanada (Canada)Nova Chemicals (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportPipeline (software)SubjectivityComputer scienceRisk assessmentLine (geometry)Subject matterSubject-matter expertReliability engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Forensic engineeringData miningEngineeringArtificial intelligencePsychologyComputer securityMathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pipeline risk models are used to prioritize integrity assessments and mitigative actions to achieve acceptable levels of risk. Some of these models rely on scores associated with parameters known or thought to contribute to a particular threat. For pipelines without in-line inspection (ILI) or direct assessment data, scores are often estimated by subject matter experts and as a result, are highly subjective. This paper describes a methodology for reducing the subjectivity of risk model scores by quantitatively deriving the scores based on ILI and failure data. This method is applied to determine pipeline coating and soil interaction scores in an external corrosion likelihood model for uninspected pipelines. Insights are drawn from the new scores as well as from a comparison with scores developed by subject matter experts.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.258 · 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