MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cross Correlation of Demands in Water Distribution Network Design

2007· article· en· W2162071203 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Resources Planning and Management · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Water Network
KeywordsCorrelationUnisonNetwork planning and designStandard deviationEconometricsStatisticsEnvironmental scienceOperations researchComputer scienceSimulationMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of water distribution design is to size and configure a system so that it meets existing and future demands while providing pressures above a minimum level for service and fire protection. Extended period simulation (EPS) is used in design to determine network pressures under varied diurnal demand patterns. In EPS, diurnal demands are almost invariably assumed to change in unison, or in statistical terms, to be strongly correlated in space. This paper first tests this common assumption by investigating the extent to which cross correlation in demand affects the mean and standard deviation of pressure heads in water networks, and then investigates how cross correlated demands can influence capital costs in network design. Preliminary findings from two examples indicate that the standard deviation of pressure head and capital costs can be sensitive to the level of cross correlation between nodal demands. Thus a realistic assessment of cross correlation in demand can lead to a more economical design.

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)0.001
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 score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.214
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