MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338154236 · doi:10.2166/aqua.2006.075

Failure risk management of buried infrastructure using fuzzy-based techniques

2006· article· en· W2338154236 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

VenueJournal of Water Supply Research and Technology—AQUA · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersAmerican Water Works Association Research FoundationWater Research Foundation
KeywordsOfficerPhoneLibrary scienceResearch councilIconPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)Computer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effective management of failure risk of buried infrastructure assets requires knowledge of their current condition, their rate of deterioration, the expected consequences of their failure and the owner's (decision-maker) risk tolerance. Fuzzy-based techniques seem to be particularly suited to modeling the deterioration of buried infrastructure assets, for which data are scarce, cause-effect knowledge is imprecise and observations and criteria are often expressed in vague (linguistic) terms (e.g., 'good', 'fair' 'poor' condition, etc.). The use of fuzzy sets and fuzzy-based techniques helps to incorporate inherent imprecision, uncertainties and subjectivity of available data, as well as to propagate these attributes throughout the model, yielding more realistic results.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.231 · 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