MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415622915 · doi:10.55274/r0000154

PR214-233810-R01 Revised PRCI Pipeline and Facility Threat Categories

2025· report· W4415622915 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)DocumentationIntegrity managementVariety (cybernetics)Threat assessmentPipeline transport

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report describes the update to Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI) threat categories, originally described in L51885 and L52317 for primarily onshore gas pipelines. The update was completed by reviewing threat categories published in Australia, Canada, Europe, and the USA. PRCI members were involved in reviewing the updated threat categories and their feedback was incorporated. The updated threat categories are now applicable to onshore, offshore, pipelines, facilities, and liquid and gas products, enabling integrity engineers to consider a variety of damage mechanism-based threats with a proposed conceptual test that requires consideration and documentation of a threat within an integrity management plan. The report also allows pipeline and facility incidents to be attributed to threat categories with higher fidelity than previous threat category systems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.243 · 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