MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047930728 · doi:10.1061/9780784483206.012

Prioritizing Pit Cast Iron Small Diameter Watermains for Assessment

2020· article· en· W3047930728 on OpenAlex

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
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsCIMA+ (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCast ironMaterials scienceMetallurgyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Watermains distribution systems are critical assets that are prone to deterioration due to aging and other influencing factors. Although periodic inspections are needed, the physical assessment may involve extensive labor and financial burden on pipe owners. Therefore, it is paramount to prioritize watermains for assessment. While the risk-based approach is commonly used approach to prioritize watermains for assessment, the initial probability of failure is usually based on expert’s judgment and/or a hazard function that is based mainly on watermains breakage records. For those pipe owners with limited pipe breakage history records, they rely more on expert’s judgment. This paper presents a probabilistic failure model to prioritize pit cast iron pipes for assessment under combined internal pressure and external loading. While the corrosion pits that form during the process of graphitization is simulated using a power model, the in-service strength degradation is accounted for using the Weibull extreme value probability distribution. Uncertainty in the model was addressed using Monte Carlo Simulation.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.237 · 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