MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047647804 · doi:10.1061/9780784483213.024

Finding Big Leaks with Big Data: Case Studies from an Internet-of-Things Leak Detection Platform

2020· article· en· W3047647804 on OpenAlex
Matthew Barrett, Zohreh Andalibi, Т. А. Баева, Adam Chan

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePipelines 2020 · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsOntario Genomics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBig dataLeakInternet of ThingsComputer scienceLeak detectionComputer securityEmbedded systemData miningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents results from an “Internet of Things” leak detection technology that remotely and non-invasively monitors pipelines at the scale of a distribution network. Findings are presented from the deployment of 10,000+ acoustic leak detection nodes with dozens of utility partners. The design and installation of the nodes, the type of data collected, and the approach to data analysis is outlined. A series of case studies are described where the technology has found leaks that failed to surface: large or significant leaks, leaks that were difficult to pinpoint, and unexpected signals found in the process. Both the data analysis and utility perspectives are shown, comparing remotely collected acoustic data to observations from field technicians. The successes and limitations of the technology are both discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.181 · 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