Asset Management Mixing Bowl: Idea Sharing Amongst Owners
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Many municipalities have the same concerns when it comes to infrastructure planning. Whether it is condition assessment, budgeting or general planning concerns, most similar sized agencies face the same dilemmas throughout the U.S. The knowledge gained through active communication between those sharing a similar interest can be vast. It is likely that challenges being faced by one owner are also being experienced by many more similarly sized agencies. Howard County Department of Public Works (DWP) recently completed a condition assessment for over 44,000 LF of distribution main in one of its oldest planned communities. The Wilde Lake area, which was established in the mid-1960’s, has experienced numerous water main breaks in recent years. In an effort to remain pro-active, Howard County DPW launched a comprehensive study into the cause of the water main breaks, with the intent of developing an overall replacement strategy for the community. As the project developed, it became apparent that this community’s distribution system was a good representation of the County’s system as a whole and the studies completed as part of this project could be applied comprehensively to the entire system. As such, the Wilde Lake condition assessment became a pilot program which could be used to develop a larger asset management program for their distribution system. As the project continued, it became apparent that other local agencies were facing a similar dilemma of how to evaluate and manage their distribution systems. In an effort to gain an industry-wide perspective, the County developed a “Pipeline Management Working Group” that included representatives from Baltimore County, Baltimore City, DC Water and WSSC. These agencies met both in person and via webinar to discuss topics such as: (1) Various inspection techniques (2) Desktop pipeline risk analysis (3) Data Management (4) Replacement strategies (5) Operational strategies. Following the successful outcome of the local information sharing session, the program was expanded to include other North American utility owners, when Howard County hosted a Pipeline Management Working Group at the 2014 ASCE Pipelines Conference in Portland, OR. This session was attended by owners from the US and Canada, all of whom shared a common interest in learning how each other handled their distribution systems. The idea of information sharing, although not a new concept, it is typically done only on a local level. However, by expanding the circle of participants to those outside a local region, additional perspectives can be gained. As the mixing bowl continues to grow to include additional participants, the level of quality knowledge being exchanged is sure to reach new heights!
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,026 | 0,036 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,016 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,017 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,020 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».