MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394988643 · doi:10.1016/j.ijcip.2024.100679

A comparison of onshore oil and gas transmission pipeline incident statistics in Canada and the United States

2024· article· en· W4394988643 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPipeline transportPipeline (software)Hazardous wasteEngineeringEnvironmental scienceNatural gasFossil fuelPetroleum engineeringForensic engineeringWaste managementEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analyzes the mileage and incident data between 1995 and 2016 corresponding to the onshore oil and natural gas transmission pipelines regulated by the Canada Energy Regulator (CER) and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) of the United States. The analysis indicates that the material/weld/equipment failure is the leading failure cause for both CER and PHMSA pipeline incidents. The annual average incident rates of the CER and PHMSA pipelines are in the order of 10−3 per km except for the PHMSA gas pipelines, the annual incident rate of which is in the order of 10−4 per km. The annual average rupture rates of the CER and PHMSA pipelines vary from 3.5 × 10−5 to 4.5 × 10−5 per km. The F-N curves for the PHMSA pipelines are developed based on the mileage and incident data to quantify the societal risks posed by the pipeline in general.

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 score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.282
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