Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The lack of established acceptance criteria has been one of the key challenges to the application of quantitative risk assessment (QRA) techniques in the Canadian pipeline industry. While a wide range of such criteria have been developed and published, it remains difficult for most operators to commit to specific criteria because such criteria may not be acceptable to all stakeholders. Recognizing this limitation, the Canadian Standards Association formed a Risk Management Task Force (RMTF) under the Technical Committee for the Z662 Standard on the Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems to propose criteria for potential inclusion in its non-mandatory Annex on Risk Assessment. This paper describes the criteria that have been developed by the RMTF and provides the background information needed for users to understand and use them correctly. The discussion includes: a summary of the measures used to quantify the safety risk associated with an ignited product release; a summary of established international and Canadian criteria that have been considered; a description and interpretation of the ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable) principle; and the rationale used by the RMTF to select specific individual risk and societal risk criteria for CSA Z662. The proposed criteria are also compared to the criteria underpinning other risk-based parts of the Z662 Standard, including Annexes C and O. Guidance is provided on the analysis assumptions, methods and parameters required to ensure that the risk calculations produce results that are consistent with the definition and intent of the criteria. Key issues addressed by the guidance include the definition of individual risk (i.e. location risk versus personal risk), the pipeline length over which the frequency versus number of fatalities (F-N) relationship representing societal risk is calculated, and the effect of population density averaging over the pipeline length.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".