MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110892531 · doi:10.1680/wama.2007.160.2.83

Estimating time to failure of cast-iron water mains

2007· article· en· W2110892531 on OpenAlexaff
Balvant Rajani, Solomon Tesfamariam

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Water Management · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMains electricityCorrosionEnvironmental scienceBeddingGeotechnical engineeringPipe network analysisEngineeringReliability engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water distribution networks form essential components of water supply systems in most urban centres. Water mains buried in the soil/backfill are exposed to different deleterious reactions and—as a result—their design factors of safety may significantly degrade with time, leading to structural failure. In most cases, a combination of circumstances leads to the failure of a pipe. Factors contributing to pipe failure include: operational conditions; design parameters; external loads (traffic, frost, etc.); internal loads (operating and surge pressures); temperature changes; loss of bedding support, pipe properties and condition; and corrosion pit geometry. These are recorded rarely, if at all, and it is therefore very difficult to ascertain the precise causes of failure. Even if all this information were available, any attempt to estimate the pipe condition state would involve considerable uncertainty owing to large spatial and temporal variability that is inherent in this information. Estimation of time to failure is further exacerbated by the uncertainties in determining future corrosion rates. In this paper, corrosion models and a previously developed analytical model based on Winkler-type pipe–soil interaction are used to estimate time to failure. Since available data are insufficient to establish credible probability distributions, uncertainties in the input data/parameters are handled using possibility theory and fuzzy arithmetic. Sensitivity analyses are carried out to identify the critical data/parameters that merit further investigation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.164 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations50
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Water ManagementSame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207