MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133129963 · doi:10.5555/1516744.1517180

Simulation as a tool for life cycle cost analysis

2008· article· en· W2133129963 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

VenueWinter Simulation Conference · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife cycle costingMains electricityRehabilitationComputer scienceLife-cycle cost analysisMonte Carlo methodElectricityOrder (exchange)Risk analysis (engineering)Reliability engineeringOperations researchEngineeringOperations managementBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Life cycle cost is an essential approach to decide on alternative rehabilitation strategies for infrastructure systems. Monte Carlo simulation approach is used to develop a stochastic life cycle cost (SLCC) model and methodology in order to compare different rehabilitation scenarios/ alternatives for infrastructures, such as water mains. The presented research in this paper identifies several rehabilitation methods for water mains, which are classified into three main categories: repair, renovation, and replacement. The developed model helps academics and practitioners (e.g. municipal engineers) to predict the suitable new installation and/or rehabilitation programs as well as their corresponding costs, thereby, to avoid any unpleasant surprises.

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 score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.231 · 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