Fuzzy-Based Method to Evaluate Soil Corrosivity for Prediction of Water Main Deterioration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A fuzzy-based method is proposed to evaluate soil corrosivity from soil properties such as soil resistivity, pH, redox potential, sulfide content, and soil type. The fuzzy-based method considers three levels of soil corrosivity, noncorrosive, moderately corrosive, and corrosive. This is in contrast to the commonly used 10-point scoring (10-P) method that has only two classes, corrosive and noncorrosive. Membership functions for each of the soil properties are used to quantify their affinity to the level of soil corrosivity. These membership values form an evaluation matrix from which a weighted vector is developed using pair-wise soil property comparisons. The final classification is determined from the cross product of the weighted vector and the evaluation matrix. Two case studies are examined to validate the application of the proposed fuzzy-based method to predict soil corrosivity, and the results are compared to the 10-P method. Both case studies showed that the fuzzy-based method outperformed the 10-P method.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".