MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036803902 · doi:10.1139/l10-035

Technical hazard identification in water treatment using fault tree analysis

2010· article· en· W2036803902 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFault tree analysisHazard analysisIdentification (biology)HazardFault (geology)Reliability engineeringComputer scienceTree (set theory)Risk analysis (engineering)EngineeringMathematicsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this qualitative paper, a method for technical and operational hazard identification of a water treatment plant is described. Here, fault tree analysis is applied to a physicochemical ultrafiltration (UF) membrane train, with the objectives of developing a systematic approach for organizing and improving our understanding of the hazards at the treatment plant operational level that affect the risk of infection from the pathogen Cryptosporidium parvum. The approach was successful in identifying many technical and operational hazards. The fault tree shows that water treatment plant operation is a complex task where many factors must be taken into account. Regarding the removal of C. parvum oocysts, most initiating events relate to the filtration step in the UF system. In the future, quantification of the probability of fault events may help to prioritize interventions at the operational level.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.181 · 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