Battle of Postdisaster Response and Restoration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper presents the results of the Battle of Postdisaster Response and Restoration (BPDRR) presented in a special session at the first International water distribution systems analysis & computing and control in the water industry (WDSA/CCWI) Joint Conference, held in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, in July 2018. The BPDRR problem focused on how to respond and restore water service after the occurrence of five earthquake scenarios that cause structural damage in a water distribution system. Participants were required to propose a prioritization schedule to fix the damages of each scenario while following restrictions on visibility/nonvisibility of damages. Each team/approach was evaluated against six performance criteria: (1) time without supply for hospital/firefighting, (2) rapidity of recovery, (3) resilience loss, (4) average time of no user service, (5) number of users without service for eight consecutive hours, and (6) water loss. Three main types of approaches were identified from the submissions: (1) general-purpose metaheuristic algorithms, (2) greedy algorithms, and (3) ranking-based prioritizations. All three approaches showed potential to solve the challenge efficiently. The results of the participants showed that for this network, the impact of a large-diameter pipe failure on the network is more significant than several smaller pipes failures. The location of isolation valves and the size of hydraulic segments influenced the resilience of the system during emergencies. On average, the interruptions to water supply (hospitals and firefighting) varied considerably among solutions and emergency scenarios, highlighting the importance of private water storage for emergencies. The effects of damages and repair work were more noticeable during the peak demand periods (morning and noontime) than during the low-flow periods; and tank storage helped to preserve functionality of the network in the first few hours after a simulated event.
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 | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".