Data-Driven Models for Forecasting Failure Modes in Oil and Gas Pipes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oil and gas pipelines are lifelines for a country’s economic survival. As a result, they must be closely monitored to maximize their performance and avoid product losses in the transportation of petroleum products. However, they can collapse, resulting in dangerous repercussions, financial losses, and environmental consequences. Therefore, assessing the pipe condition and quality would be of great significance. Pipeline safety is ensured using a variety of inspection techniques, despite being time-consuming and expensive. To address these inefficiencies, this study develops a model that anticipates sources of failure in oil pipelines based on specific factors related to pipe diameter and age, service (transported product), facility type, and land use. The model is developed using a multilayer perceptron (MLP) neural network, radial basis function (RBF) neural network, and multinomial logistic (MNL) regression based on historical data from pipeline incidents. With an average validity of 84% for the MLP, 85% for the RBF, and 81% for the MNL, the models can forecast pipeline failures owing to corrosion and third-party activities. The developed model can help pipeline operators and decision makers detect different failure sources in pipelines and prioritize the required maintenance and replacement actions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".