MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328941649 · doi:10.1061/41073(361)7

Best Practices in the Condition Assessment of Water Transmission Mains

2009· article· en· W2328941649 on OpenAlexaffabout
Xiangjie Kong, Brian Mergelas

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsResearch Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsset managementMains electricityAsset (computer security)Computer sciencePipeline (software)Transmission (telecommunications)RevenueRisk analysis (engineering)Condition monitoringPipeline transportEngineeringReliability engineeringBusinessTelecommunicationsComputer securityElectrical engineeringEnvironmental engineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large diameter water transmission mains represent a significant portion of the underground assets of any given water utility. Until recently, there have been few options available for ascertaining the actual condition of these assets. One notable exception has been Prestressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe (PCCP). Since the invention of RFTC technology, developed at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada in the early 1990's, more than 4,000km of PCCP has been assessed. This condition based asset management technique has become the standard for those utilities who want to establish a long term maintenance and management plan for their PCCP networks. With the introduction of the Sahara leak detection system, the industry now has a powerful tool to gather direct information about the condition of any transmission main — regardless of its material construction type. The Sahara system accurately pinpoints the location and size of leaks as small as 1 liter/hour. A utility can utilize this system to precisely locate leaks, reduce non-revenue water, identify leaks causing pipeline commissioning delays, and as a condition assessment / risk management / asset validation tool that provides information that forms the basis of future asset management strategies.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207