MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Energy Metrics to Evaluate the Energy Use and Performance of Water Main Assets

2017· article· en· W2746584496 on OpenAlexaff
Saeed Hashemi, Yves Filion, Vanessa Speight

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Resources Planning and Management · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsLeakage (economics)Energy (signal processing)Efficient energy useElectricityMains electricityHydraulic headEnergy accountingBenchmark (surveying)Environmental scienceComputer scienceReliability engineeringEngineeringGeologyGeotechnical engineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Managing aging infrastructure has become one of the greatest challenges for water utilities, particularly when faced with selecting the most critical pipes for rehabilitation from among the thousands of candidates. This paper presents a set of novel yet practical energy metrics that quantify energy interactions at the spatial resolution of individual water mains to help utilities identify pipes for rehabilitation. The metrics are demonstrated using a benchmark system and two large, complex systems. The results show that the majority of pipes have good energy performance but that an important minority of outlier pipes have low energy efficiency and high energy losses due to friction and leakage. Pumping and tank operations tend to drive energy efficiency and energy losses in pipes close to water sources, whereas diurnal variation in demand drives energy performance of mains located far away from water sources. The new metrics of energy lost to friction and energy lost to leakage can provide information on energy performance in a pipe that is complementary to the traditional measures of unit head loss and leakage flow.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Resources Planning and ManagementSame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207