MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prediction Models for Annual Break Rates of Water Mains

2009· article· en· W2133168389 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Performance of Constructed Facilities · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersConcordia University
KeywordsMains electricityEngineeringElectricityStatistical analysisCivil engineeringEnvironmental scienceForensic engineeringStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Annual break rates are often used by municipalities as one of the most important criteria in rating the condition of water mains. This paper presents the development of deterioration models that predict the annual break rates of water mains considering pipe material, diameter, age, and length. The data used in this paper are collected from a Canadian municipality that has a large water distribution network. The collected data cover 15-year pipe break records of 432km of water mains. Five multiple regression models are developed, which show robust statistical analysis. Twenty percent of break data were randomly selected for validation in which the developed models demonstrate satisfactory results. The research presented in this paper is expected to be useful to academics and practitioners (municipal engineers, consultants, and contractors) in analyzing deterioration trends of water mains.

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 score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.178 · 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