MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165911542 · doi:10.1061/40994(321)93

Water Loss Levels from Transmission Mains in Urban Environments

2008· article· en· W2165911542 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cliff Jones, Kevin Laven

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMains electricityLeakage (economics)Pipeline transportElectricityEnvironmental scienceLeakWater supplyElectric power transmissionEngineeringEnvironmental engineeringElectrical engineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As aging water infrastructure and increasing water supply pressures become a fact of life in North American cities, attitudes towards leakage from water mains are changing. Water audits are becoming part of the standard operation of water utilities, and the volumes of treated water escaping from pipelines are coming under increased scrutiny. Most urban utilities now have leak detection programs to reduce leakage from their small diameter distribution mains. Until recently, however, the large diameter transmission mains have been largely overlooked, due to a lack of concrete data on how much water loss originates in these pipelines, and a lack of effective technologies for locating all leaks on such lines. New technologies engineered specifically for leak detection in large diameter water mains have now emerged on the market, and empirical data is available on actual leakage rates from large diameter mains in urban environments. This paper combines results obtained in Dallas, Philadelphia, Allentown, Montreal, and Toronto, and presents a discussion of the number of leaks, their volume, and their distribution, as well as a comparison to the expected results. Cost / benefit analysis will be presented as well when possible.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.165
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207