Ranking Approach to Scheduling Repairs of a Water Distribution System for the Post-Disaster Response and Restoration Service
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
On the maintenance task list of each water distribution system (WDS) operator, determination of the order of undertaken repairs seems quite a typical task. Characteristics of damages, their localization, and other factors that influence repair sequencing have a sound impact on the execution of such tasks. In the case of the most complex cases where numerous failures of different types occur at the very same time (i.e., due to earthquakes), there is a long list of selection criteria that have to be analyzed to deliver an objectively logical schedule for repair teams. In this article, authors attempt to find out if it is possible to define pipe rankings in having obtained the best factors for defined objective functions (criteria), making it feasible to deliver judicious repair sequencing. For the purposes of this paper, a survey has been carried out. Its conclusions made it possible to propose a method to create rankings of pipes and evaluate them using a selected multicriteria decision method: preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation (PROMETHEE). The work was carried out for five different disaster scenarios that had been supplied by ‘The Battle of Post-Disaster Response and Restoration’ organization committee. Obtained results might be further used to finetune this sequencing method of undertaken repairs, while conclusions could be useful to model similar events in WDS when required. This article is an extended paper based on the conference preprint presented at the 1st International Water Distribution Systems Analysis (WDSA)/International Computing & Control for the Water Industry (CCWI) Joint Conference in July 23–25, 2018 in Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 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