Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pipelines that traverse areas of active ground movement may be subject to Tensile Strain Demand (TSD) due to soil-pipe interaction. Independently, the pipe may have locations with reduced Tensile Strain Capacity (TSC) stemming from construction practices or due to pre-existing pipe wall defects, girth weld anomalies, or Circumferential Stress Corrosion Cracking (CSCC). The confluence of elevated TSD and reduced TSC presents a susceptibility to Loss of Containment (LOC) due to circumferential cracking. This study provides a methodology to identify segments and sites with circumferential cracking susceptibility and a Probability of Failure (POF) calculation methodology. The developed POF calculation draws on NDE-4-24 Framework Deliverable 8, Geohazard Program Considerations, that describes the landslide hazard and scenarios of landslide ground displacement. Likewise, the POF calculation references Framework Deliverable 9, Pipeline Vulnerability Analysis Methodology, for the probabilistic calculation of TSD based on soil-pipe interaction and ground displacement, and vulnerability to circumferential crack LOC taking into consideration the effect of pre-existing circumferential flaws. Validation of the POF calculation is based on an analysis of historical incident case studies as provided in Framework Deliverable 7, Probability of Failure Calculator for Landslides Report. The overall methodology aligns with the approach defined in Framework Deliverable 2, Pipeline Reliability Thresholds, where reliability thresholds are defined as a function of a risk benchmark and variables that reflect the magnitude of the consequence along the pipeline. Comparison of the POF to a reliability threshold provide a basis for risk-informed circumferential crack management.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.192 | 0.189 |
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".