MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986705000 · doi:10.5942/jawwa.2013.105.0071

Homeowners' decision‐making in a premise plumbing failure–prone area

2013· article· en· W1986705000 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

VenueAmerican Water Works Association · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPremiseBusinessRisk analysis (engineering)PreferenceProcess (computing)Computer scienceEconomicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two formal preference‐elicitation methodologies—conjoint analysis and the analytical hierarchical process—were applied to examine the actions taken by homeowners living in a premise plumbing failure‐prone area and the decision‐making they used to minimize their risk resulting from corrosion, cost, and other issues related to home plumbing. Most households preferred simply to stay with their current plumbing materials rather than install an upgrade to reduce the risk of corrosion or purchase insurance against corrosion damage. Health, taste, and odor were dominant considerations for consumers. It was interesting that some survey respondents answered one way when stating preferences but behaved differently when making real‐life choices. This information will be helpful for policy experts and utility companies seeking new ways to deal with premise plumbing issues.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.191
Teacher spread0.183 · 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