MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312393449 · doi:10.1115/ipc2022-86832

CSA EXP16: Human and Organizational Factors for Optimal Pipeline Performance

2022· article· en· W4312393449 on OpenAlexaff
Claudine Bradley, Sue Capper

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsCanadian Standards AssociationAlberta Energy
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)Scope (computer science)Knowledge managementSubject-matter expertHarmComputer scienceBest practiceProcess managementEngineeringManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Human and Organizational Factors (HOF) as a discipline applies tools, theory, principles, data and methods to optimize human, organizational, and overall system performance. To date, there has been relatively little guidance available to pipeline operating companies regarding the integration of HOF within and across organizational management systems, pipeline protection programs, and operational activities. CSA Group Express Document EXP16 (EXP16) entitled Human and organizational factors for optimal pipeline performance is intended to address this deficiency. It builds upon a previously published express document, which was more limited in scope: CSA EXP248 Pipeline Human Factors. EXP16 is intended to offer practical guidance regarding the management of Performance Influencing Factors (PIFs) and provide greater content dedicated to organizational factors such as leadership, governance, management system effectiveness, and safety culture. EXP16 has been prepared and reviewed by the CSA Group’s Development Committee on Human and Organizational Factors for Optimal Pipeline Performance. The committee was comprised of representatives from pipeline companies, consulting firms, regulatory agencies, investigative bodies, and HOF subject matter experts from various technical fields (e.g., nuclear). The goal of the document was to marry the introduction of key concepts with practical guidance and best practices that a pipeline company may apply to support enhanced performance, including the prevention of harm to people, property, and the environment caused by a major hazard accident (e.g., unintended product release, spill, explosion, fire). This paper will review the content and application of EXP16. It will discuss seven key HOF principles and introduce several relevant PIFs associated with People, Organization, and Task, Technology, and Workplace. The impact and management of PIFs throughout the pipeline life cycle will be explored. This paper will also present the key concept of “the learning organization” and how this outcome may be facilitated through both the proactive and reactive application of HOFs.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.008

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207