Validation and Comparison of Different Statistical Models for the Prediction of Water Main Pipe Breaks in a Municipal Network in Québec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, three models for the simulation of the number of breaks in a water main network are presented and compared: linear regression, the Weibull-Exponential-Exponential (WEE), and the Weibull-Exponential-Exponential-Exponential (WEEE) models. These models were calibrated using a database of recorded breaks in a real water main network of a municipality in the province of Québec, for the observation period 1976 to 1996, with the least squares and the maximum likelihood methods. The ability of these models to predict breaks over time was then evaluated by comparing the predicted number of breaks for the years 1997 to 2007 with the observed breaks in the network over the same time period. Results show that if the period of observation is short (around 20 years), calibration of the WEE and WEEE models with the maximum likelihood method leads to estimates that are closer to the observations than when these models are calibrated with the least squares method. When the observation period is longer (around 30 years), the predictions obtained with the models calibrated using the maximum likelihood or the least squares methods are similar. However, the use of the maximum likelihood method for calibration is only possible when data for the occurrence of each break for each pipe of the network are available (a pipe being a homogeneous network segment between two adjacent street junctions). If this is not the case, a trend line will be sufficient to predict the number of breaks over time, though this type of curve does not allow to account for pipe replacement scenarios. If the only information available is the total number of breaks on the network each year, then the impact of replacement scenarios could be simulated with the WEE and WEEE models calibrated using the least squares method.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".