MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408603422 · doi:10.5006/mp2024_63_8-52

Managing Pipeline Integrity with NACE SP0113

2024· article· en· W4408603422 on OpenAlexaff
Sankara Papavinasam, Kerri Kryger, Naim Dakwar, Peter Bergen, Bala Ganapathy, Arvind Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials performance · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsGibson Energy (Canada)ConocoPhillips (Canada)Cochrane
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)Integrity managementEngineeringForensic engineeringStructural integrityPetroleum engineeringConstruction engineeringMechanical engineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is a shortened version of a paper presented at AMPP 2024.1 It provides an overview of the 2023 version of NACE SP 0113: “Pipeline Integrity Management (PIM): Methods Selection and Implementation.”2 This standard practice presents guidance to operators for selecting and implementing methods, technologies, or activities to manage pipeline integrity and for demonstrating that due diligence was exercised during PIM activities through use of key performance indicators.

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 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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials performanceSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207