MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316353479 · doi:10.1061/40792(173)50

A Systematic Exploration of Uncertainty and Convergence of Inverse Transient Calibration for WDSs

2005· article· en· W2316353479 on OpenAlexaff
Bernhard Jung, Bryan Karney

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle swarm optimizationCalibrationMathematical optimizationComputer scienceConvergence (economics)Evolutionary algorithmPremature convergenceGlobal optimizationProcess (computing)Genetic algorithmLocal optimumTransient (computer programming)Evolutionary computationAlgorithmMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite over ten years of research into ITC techniques for water distribution systems, many problems remain. One reason for these difficulties is that real water distribution systems invariably have many other uncertainties in addition to the leakage rates and friction factors that are conventionally considered as unknowns. For example, properties such as pipe diameter, wave speed, the possible presence of air, the value of the water demand at the time of the tests, and uncertain measurement accuracy, all add to the complexity and difficulty of obtaining a reliable calibration. The current paper investigates quantitatively how several of these uncertainties deteriorate system calibration, and thus the paper generally considers the necessity of a systematic calibration approach to explicitly include these additional uncertainties during the ITC process. To this end, two evolutionary optimizations, namely Genetic Algorithms and Particle Swarm Optimization, are compared and contrasted during the ITC iterations. The advantage of the evolutionary algorithms is that they help the search to escape from poor local optima in multifaceted and complicate problems and thus to locate a good global (or near-global) optimum. However, even these approaches can often be expected to converge poorly when the full scale of the field problem is reflected in the search space.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207