Principles and guidelines of deterioration modelling for water and waste water assets
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deterioration modelling is an important analytical component in risk-informed infrastructure asset management. Many asset managers find it very challenging because of its technicality, paucity of deterioration data and difficulty in model selection. Traditional approaches emphasised the mean deterioration trend and heeded too little the characterisation of uncertainty involved. This paper attempts to revert this trend and bring stochastic deterioration modelling back to focus. Following a systems approach, the author argues that deterioration modelling involves not only the data-driven process that asset managers have traditionally perceived, but also a system analysis that carries the empirical deterioration modelling at the level of performance data up to the level of the performance hierarchy at which decisions are made. In addition, deterioration modelling is an important and integral component of risk analysis, and therefore, the characterisation and quantification of aleatory uncertainty and epistemic uncertainty become an essential component of deterioration modelling. Moreover, deterioration data include not only hard data collected from inspection and condition assessment, but also soft data that can be gleaned from expert opinions, design manuals and professional judgements. Although mainly for water and waste water assets, the principles, guidelines and model selection flow chart are equally applicable to other infrastructure assets.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it