A longitudinal study of the natural gas pipeline industry in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The natural gas pipeline industry in British Columbia can appear to be a complicated patchwork of agencies and organizations working in jurisdictional silos that prevent the easy transfer of information. Even life-cycle agencies can appear to work within their mandated zones of control, with little impact on the broader evolution of the industry. This thesis helps determine and define what the regulatory and interagency framework of the natural gas pipeline industry in BC looks like, how the agencies and industry groups communicate on both formal and informal levels, and how they learn and share information to further the safety of the industry as a whole. To identify the roles that pipeline organizations and agencies play in the industry, a detailed examination was conducted of the key agencies involved in the pipeline regulatory life-cycle, describing their history, mandates, roles and responsibilities in the province. Communication between these groups was examined through focus groups with the two dominant regulators (BC Oil and Gas Commission and the Canadian Energy Regulator) in the province. The evolving tolerances for risk and how learning from lessons has been applied over time was studied through a timeline of incidents and policy changes in the province, and in five case studies that showcased some causes of pipeline failure and the evolving nature of incident investigation. The results of this study suggest that the regulatory landscape for the natural gas pipeline in British Columbia is evolving towards one with a lower tolerance for risk, higher safety standards, and a better understanding of how to mitigate issues. Regulators and industry organizations maintain extensive communication, both formal and informal, through various channels and mechanisms, which enhance their effectiveness (the ability to meet mandates and achieve system efficiency and public safety) and cooperation (the sharing of information, coordination of activities to maximize effectiveness). The agencies are learning organizations in that they work to promote information sharing, transparency, and adaptation of policy based on the lessons learned, particularly from incidents
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".