MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983402293 · doi:10.1080/15730620412331289995

Fluid transients and pipeline optimization using GA and PSO: the diameter connection

2004· article· en· W1983402293 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Water Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle swarm optimizationPipeline (software)Transient (computer programming)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceGenetic algorithmSelection (genetic algorithm)Pipeline transportPipe network analysisProcess (computing)Nonlinear systemOptimization problemEngineeringMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the optimal selection of pipe diameters in a network considering steady state and transient analysis in water distribution systems. Two evolutionary approaches, namely genetic algorithms (GA) and particle swarm optimization (PSO), are used as optimization methods to obtain pipe diameters. Both optimization programs, inspired by natural evolution and adaptation, show excellent performance for solving moderately complex real-world problems which are highly nonlinear and demanding. The case study shows that the integration of GA or PSO with a transient analysis technique can improve the search for effective and economical hydraulic protection strategies. This study also shows that not only is the selection of pipe diameters crucially sensitive for the surge protection strategies but also that more global systematic approaches should be involved in water distribution system design, preferably at an early stage in the design process.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.166 · 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