MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143895206 · doi:10.1109/nafips.2004.1336311

A fuzzy expert system for deterioration modeling of buried metallic pipes

2004· article· en· W2143895206 on OpenAlexaff
Homayoun Najjaran, Balvant Rajani, Rehan Sadiq

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Annual Meeting of the Fuzzy Information, 2004. Processing NAFIPS '04. · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpert systemKnowledge baseData miningField (mathematics)Fuzzy setFuzzy logicComputer scienceSubject-matter expertProcess (computing)Legal expert systemData modelingKnowledge-based systemsSet (abstract data type)EngineeringMachine learningArtificial intelligenceDatabaseMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the framework of a proposed expert system that is used to predict the deterioration rate of buried metallic pipes, based on surrounding soil properties. The knowledge base of the expert system is developed using two sources of information available for evaluating the deterioration of pipes: expert knowledge and field data. The novelty of the proposed approach lies in the modeling process and the framework of the expert system, complying with the nature of the information available. The knowledge base is composed of a subjective and an objective model. The former is based upon fuzzy IF-THEN rules representing the expert knowledge obtained from published work and an expert survey. It determines the soil corrosivity potential (CoP). The objective model is a single-input-single-output (SISO) model that relates the deterioration rate (DR) to CoP. The objective model may be developed using either fuzzy modeling or a regression analysis of field data. The result of the latter is based on a set of available field data, used in a previous study, is presented.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations13
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Annual Meeting of the Fuzzy Information, 2004. Processing NAFIPS '04.Same topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207