MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314333516 · doi:10.1061/41069(360)11

Phased Condition Assessment Program for a Challenging Condition Assessment Project on a 13 Mile, 36-Inch PCCP Effluent Main

2009· article· en· W2314333516 on OpenAlexaff
Michael S. Higgins, Chery Braun, Edward Padewski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsRedlen Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMilePipeline (software)EffluentAsset managementPipeline transportEngineeringWater cooledVulnerability assessmentMarine engineeringEnvironmental scienceCivil engineeringWater coolingWaste managementEnvironmental engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Toho Water Authority operates a 36-inch effluent main that is a critical asset for the agency. It is the sole source of conveyance for treated wastewater to be transmitted out of their largest wastewater treatment plant. Further, it supplies cooling water to two power generation facilities and parallels/crosses a CSX rail line at several locations. The pipeline has not experienced any significant problems, but as a proactive measure a comprehensive condition assessment program was implemented. The 13 mile long pipeline consists of a 36-inch diameter prestressed (AWWA C301), lined cylinder pipe that presented several challenges when performing the condition assessment. This paper describes the condition assessment challenges and how a condition assessment program was structured and implemented while the pipeline remained in service. The project was implemented in phases to allow for the collection of data along the full length of pipe in a cost effective manner.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.318
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207