MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2323676643 · doi:10.1061/41138(386)100

Safety and Waste Management of Asbestos Cement Pipes

2010· article· en· W2323676643 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dunling Wang, Yafei Hu, Rudaba Chowdhury

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational and environmental lung diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMains electricityAsbestos cementDemolitionDriver rehabilitationWater supplyHazardWaste managementWater pipeRetrofittingRehabilitationEngineeringForensic engineeringCivil engineeringAsbestosEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asbestos cement (AC) water mains, generally considered as non-friable asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), are not believed to represent a significant hazard to public health in normal use. However, repair, rehabilitation and removal of AC pipes involve cutting, polishing, and demolition can release asbestos fibers into the air, posing risks to public health. Many water utilities in North America currently have significant portions of their water mains composed of AC pipes. A comprehensive survey was conducted with 20 water utilities in the United States of America and Canada to understand the existing conditions of AC water mains in North America and to determine current management practices related to AC pipe repair, rehabilitation, and replacement. The survey was conducted through questionnaires that covered various areas: pipe inventory; environmental working conditions; current practices in pipe repair, rehabilitation and replacement; and safety/health protection practices used in working with, and disposing of AC pipe. This paper focuses on the survey results related to safety and disposal issues, including existing regulations related to testing and concentrations of asbestos fibers in drinking water, AC pipe project management, worker protection measures, and existing disposal practices for broken AC pipes. Results indicate that some utilities do not have well-established procedures to provide suitable protection for workers and the general public during AC pipe projects. Some current practices can also lead to potential problems for future site development. For example, less than half of the utilities reported having a formal procedure specifically for dealing with AC pipe in water distribution systems. When replacing broken AC pipes, more than half of the utilities had abandoned broken pipes and buried them in place as their primary method of disposal. Standardized procedures, which can be critical for the safety of workers, the public and future site development, are needed by water utilities for handling AC pipes during the repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of AC water mains.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOccupational and environmental lung diseases→French-language works237,207→