MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224286856 · doi:10.1002/prs.12364

Probabilistic failure assessment of oil pipelines due to internal corrosion

2022· article· en· W4224286856 on OpenAlexaff
Sina Khakzad, Ming Yang, Ali Lohi, Nima Khakzad

Bibliographic record

VenueProcess Safety Progress · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrosionPipeline transportPetroleum engineeringProbabilistic logicEnvironmental scienceBayesian networkFossil fuelVolumetric flow rateMaterials scienceEngineeringMetallurgyEnvironmental engineeringWaste managementMechanicsStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Oil and gas pipelines play a key role in the safe and efficient delivery of energy resources around the world. Crude oil by itself is not corrosive, but oil extracted from geological reservoirs is accompanied by varying amounts of water and acidic gases such as carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), which can form a corrosive combination. Estimating the corrosion rate and depth in pipelines is essential for predicting their failure probability. In the present study, a Bayesian network has been developed for predicting the distribution of corrosion rate in oil pipelines given the point estimates generated using an empirical corrosion simulation model. For this purpose, the simulation model considers corrosion parameters such as pipe diameter, flow temperature, flow velocity, and CO 2 partial pressure, among others. With the corrosion rate distribution predicted by the Bayesian network, corrosion depth–rate relationships have been employed to convert the corrosion rate distribution into failure probability distribution.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcess Safety ProgressSame topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207