MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1555088292 · doi:10.5772/36696

Households’ Preferences for Plumbing Materials

2012· book-chapter· en· W1555088292 on OpenAlexaff
Ewa J. Kleczyk, Darrell J. Bosch

Bibliographic record

VenueInTech eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsImpact
FundersAmerican Water Works Association Research FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consumers' decisions on plumbing material selection are dictated by various factors, including state and federal regulations, service providers, and individual household preferences. The regulations and standards of the federal, state, and local governments have major impacts on the plumbing material chosen for installation in a private house. For example, the use of plastic plumbing material, such as PEX, has been approved in all U.S. states except for California and Massachusetts, where the material installation requires local jurisdiction acceptance. Similarly, in some parts of Florida, PEX is preferred due to the seriousness of pinhole leak 1 problems (NSF, 2008). These regulations influence services provided by plumbers, material producers (e.g. pipe manufacturers, interior coating providers), and water utility companies. For example, general contractors are the primary decision-makers of plumbing material installation in new houses, while utility companies respond to corrosion threats by adding corrosion inhibitors to drinking water treatment. Consequently, all service providers influence consumer decisions, regarding the best plumbing material for private properties.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0030.002

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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.037 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInTech eBooksSame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207