MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Constructing water main break databases for asset management

2007· article· en· W1547185164 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Andrew Wood, Barbara J. Lence, W. Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Water Works Association · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsAsset (computer security)Asset managementComputer scienceData warehouseData managementDatabaseData collectionData scienceRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessFinanceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water main break data are essential for undertaking informed infrastructure asset management. An approach for constructing break and general network data from multiple sources and relating and linking such data is presented here. The approach incorporates data from a number of sources and augments the amount of data available while maintaining existing data warehousing practices. Although it requires effort and collaboration among a utility's information technology and engineering staff, the approach is flexible; uses commonly available software tools; anticipates the evolution of data collection, verification, and storage capabilities within the utility; and, can be applied to other infrastructure assets. With the results, utility managers can gain insight into current and future performance of their distribution networks and develop future asset management strategies. As an example, the approach is applied to a portion of the water distribution network of the District of Maple Ridge, B.C., Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Water Works AssociationSame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207