Risk-Based Condition Assessment and Rehabilitation Planning in Colorado Springs
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colorado Springs, Colorado, has a population of more than 400,000 people with a metropolitan service area of more than 600,000. Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU) had identified a need to evaluate the effectiveness of its current potable water project identification and prioritization model, assess different techniques to ascertain pipe condition and predict pipe failures, and assess alternatives to open cut replacement that would mitigate the risk of water main failure at a lower cost and with reduced impact to customers. This paper provides an overview of studies carried out on the existing program and potable water system in Colorado Springs and the development of a unique risk-based framework to facilitate both condition assessment and rationalization of rehabilitation requirements for its entire potable water distribution network. It also provides both an overview of the overall risk-based approach and examples of initial condition assessment programming tools, techniques, and results. Phase 1 of the program was completed in 2012/2013 and Phase 2, which includes the deployment of field-based condition assessment activities, commenced in 2014.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it