MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170187758 · doi:10.1061/41203(425)41

An ArcGIS Tool for Rapid Contaminant Source Identification

2011· article· en· W2170187758 on OpenAlexafffund
Hailiang Shen, Edward A. McBean

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsIdentification (biology)IntrusionComputer scienceNode (physics)Geographic information systemIntrusion detection systemData miningALARMReal-time computingRemote sensingEngineeringGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The contaminant source identification (CSI) problem consists of five parts: i) identification of possible intrusion nodes (PINs), ii) quantification of the probability of each PIN as the true intrusion node, iii) identification of priority nodes (PNs) from PINs which are upstream of important nodes such as schools, hospitals, and multi-story buildings, iv) quantification of the priority degree of each PN, which indicates importance for emergency response, and iv) identifying whether a PIN connects aging pipe(s) which possess high potential for contaminant intrusion. The locations of PINs, PNs, and the connection of aging pipe(s), require involvement of geographic information system (GIS). An ArcGIS tool namely GIS-CSI is developed to integrate various data sources into ArcGIS feature class, and implement the CSI algorithm developed in Shen et al. (2009b) to solve the CSI problem, and to display the CSI outputs, i.e., PINs and PNs locations, their probabilities as intrusion nodes and priority degree respectively. In the tool demonstration, immediately after each sensor alarm, GIS-CSI can run the CSI algorithm within 5 min, and export the outputs to the water distribution system map to greatly facilitate emergency response.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207