MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of water main repairs on water quality

2008· article· en· W1539174661 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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

VenueAmerican Water Works Association · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Water Network
KeywordsFlushingContaminationEnvironmental scienceWater qualityTurbidityFecal coliformEnvironmental engineeringMains electricityHydrology (agriculture)Geotechnical engineeringEngineeringEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sixteen planned repairs of pipe leaks in two distribution systems were investigated in 2004‐2005 to study the occurrence of microbial contamination associated with repair activities in full‐scale distribution systems. Soil and water samples were collected in pipe trenches, and distribution system water was collected at consumers— homes and at flushed hydrants. The frequency of detection of fecal microbial indicators in the soil and water surrounding the mains was low. Evidence of contamination in distribution system water (based on total coliforms, Escherichia coli, and aerobic endospores) was obtained at seven of the sixteen sites. The 17 positive samples (of a total of 424) were almost all collected during flushing; results suggested that adequate pipe flushing after a repair has been completed is an effective way to minimize contamination for this type of repair. Loss of chlorine residuals and turbidity peaks were also observed outside the repair areas.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.202 · 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