Accidents in Oil and Gas Pipeline Transportation Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper provides an analysis of the causes of accidents in oil and gas pipeline systems. As part of a comprehensive overview of the topic, it also presents the historical development of pipeline systems, from the first commercial oil pipelines in the United States to modern infrastructure projects, with a particular focus on the role of regulatory requirements and measures (prevention, detection, and mitigation) to improve transport efficiency and pipeline safety. The research uses historical accident data from various databases to identify the main causes of accidents and analyse trends. The focus is on factors such as corrosion, third-party interference, and natural disasters that can lead to accidents. A comparison of the various accident databases shows that there are different practises and approaches to operation and reporting. As each database differs in terms of inclusion criteria, the categories are divided into five main groups to allow systematic interpretation of the data and cross-comparison of accident causes. Regional differences in the causes of accidents involving oil and gas pipelines in Europe, the USA, and Canada are visible. However, an integrated analysis shows that the number of accidents is declining in almost all categories. The majority of all recorded accidents are in the “Human factors and Operational disruption” and “Corrosion and Material damage” groups. It is recommended to use the database as required, as each category has its own specifics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".