Evaluation of testing methods for tracking CIPP liners’ life-cycle performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the significant investments made in the use of cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) rehabilitation technologies, quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) practices can vary widely among municipalities, and CIPP liner evaluations are mostly restricted to periodic CCTV inspections. The information in this paper is derived from a multi-year project funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). The study included a first of its kind retrospective evaluation of retrieved CIPP liners that were in service between 5 and 34 years at 18 different locations. This paper focuses on an assessment of the types of testing that were used during a pilot study to perform the CIPP retrospective evaluation. After performing the suite of tests, both visual inspection and flexural testing were found to be the key QA/QC assessment techniques. However, liners’ specific gravity was also found as a useful QA/QC tool and pursuing several other possibilities for non-destructive or minimally-invasive testing for measuring in situ physical properties of liners appeared feasible.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".