MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414035143 · doi:10.1002/qre.70066

Dynamic Risk‐Adjusted Monitoring of Time Between Events: Applications of NHPP in Pipeline Accident Surveillance

2025· article· en· W4414035143 on OpenAlex
Hussam Ahmad, Adel Ahmadi Nadi, Mohammad Amini, Subhabrata Chakraborti

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality and Reliability Engineering International · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)Accident (philosophy)Computer scienceReliability engineeringForensic engineeringStatisticsEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Monitoring time between events (TBE) is essential in many industrial settings. Traditional methods assume a time‐invariant failure rate which is unsuitable for complex systems where the failure mechanism changes over time due to degradation. The Non‐Homogeneous Poisson Process (NHPP) better models these systems by allowing a time‐varying failure intensity. Additionally, failure patterns of such systems are often influenced by risk factors like environmental conditions and human interventions. Restoration of such systems also imposes multiple cost constraints. This work proposes a novel approach: a risk‐adjusted control chart based on the NHPP model, specifically designed for monitoring the ratio, Cost/TBE, called the average cost per time unit. Risk‐adjustment enhances the chart's detectability of shifts in the failure process by isolating the risk factors' contribution. Moreover, incorporating cost‐based monitoring statistics not only emphasizes the cost impacts beside the failures themselves but also improves the chart's interpretability. The effectiveness of the proposed method is demonstrated through a comprehensive numerical study showing its superior performance compared to existing methods. The comparison study shows that ignoring the risk factors in the chart design leads to numerous false alarms, undermining the chart's effectiveness. We also illustrated the proposed method through a case study on monitoring a network of oil pipeline accidents.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.349 · 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