MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2744032119 · doi:10.1061/9780784480885.045

Developing and Implementing a PCCP Condition Assessment Program

2017· article· en· W2744032119 on OpenAlexaffabout
G Nielsen, Amanda Shane, Peter D. Nardini, Rasko P. Ojdrovic

Bibliographic record

VenuePipelines 2017 · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicQuality and Safety in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsImpactOttawa Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the City of Ottawa’s recent experiences developing and implementing a condition assessment program for large-diameter watermains. A significant portion of the inventory is comprised of prestressed concrete cylinder pipe (PCCP) lines, and due to recent failures on these pipes, efforts have been focused on understanding the condition and failure mechanisms of the PCCP in their system. As the City has embarked on their inspection program, it has become apparent that compiling and managing available data, filling in missing critical pieces of data, selecting appropriate PCCP inspection tools, and interpreting inspection results are all critical to developing a complete program. The goal of the City’s condition assessment program is to identify distressed pipes with broken prestressing wires, evaluate the risk of failure of such distressed pipes, and repair or replace pipes at high risk of failure. In order to achieve this goal, the City needs to understand the structural capacity of the pipes, the sensitivity of the pipes to prestressing wire breaks, and which inspection technologies provide sufficient resolution in the distress estimation. This paper will present an overview of the original condition assessment approach at the City of Ottawa, data sources and gathering efforts, how the program evolved as well as the lessons learned and improvements of the program over time.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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 head0.332
GPT teacher head0.620
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePipelines 2017Same topicQuality and Safety in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207