MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321521001 · doi:10.1061/41020(339)114

Risk Assessment for Water Mains Using Fuzzy Approach

2009· article· en· W2321521001 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueConstruction Research Congress 2009 · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMains electricityDam failureRisk analysis (engineering)Pipeline transportRisk assessmentEvent (particle physics)Fuzzy logicForensic engineeringReliability engineeringFailure rateRisk managementEngineeringFailure mode and effects analysisComputer scienceBusinessEnvironmental engineeringArtificial intelligenceFlood mythComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of responding to the risk of water pipelines failure has been undergoing through a great change from being active to being proactive to failure events by planning for rehabilitation plans that maintain the water main in good working conditions. This paper designs a framework to evaluate the risk of water main failure using hierarchal fuzzy expert system. There are sixteen risk-of-failure factors that represent both the probability of failure and the negative consequences of failure event and are categorized into four main risk-of-failure factors. A risk of failure model is built that evaluates the risk of pipelines failure using Fuzzy Expert System technique that accounts for the uncertainty usually encountered when evaluating the risk of failure. Some of the findings are that the pipe age gives a strong indication of the condition of the water mains, then, the pipe material and breakage rate come into play, and that the damage to surroundings/business disruption has the most negative impact of a failure event.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.284 · 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