Level of Service-Based Asset Management Framework for Water Supply Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Operators of North America’s potable water systems are facing numerous challenges in meeting the current needs and future expectations. Even though utility management experts started building customer-driven asset management systems to prioritize the water mains’ maintenance and replacement, the gap between the utility experts’ and end users’ perspectives still exists due to the lack of technical knowledge in terms of assessing the water quality. Therefore, this paper proposes a service-based asset management framework that evaluates the factors associated with the level of service (LOS) of the water supply networks and maps it to the physical condition. In this paper, the LOS for water supply networks is an indicator that measures the ability of a municipality to continuously supply the end users with adequate water quality to ensure fewer customer complaints and higher end-user satisfaction. The framework revolves around three phases: (1) data collection; (2) model implementation, which comprises LOS assessment and LOS and condition mapping models; and (3) results and analysis. To assess the LOS, a questionnaire was designed and analyzed using the best-worst method. Furthermore, an artificial neural network model was developed to map the relationship between the LOS and condition. Water quality, customer complaints, pressure, and continuity of water supply were used as mapping metrics between the LOS and condition. Toward the end, the framework was applied to the water distribution network of Montreal, Canada and it showed promising results in estimating the corresponding LOS from the condition. In addition, a cross-validation was carried out and the results displayed an 0.871 coefficient of determination (R2), which implies a strong existing relationship between the model inputs and outputs. This framework enables the utility experts to understand the customer perception of the service, optimize the budget allocation, and forecast the LOS based on the network condition.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".