MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139773084 · doi:10.2166/wpt.2021.026

Current water main rehabilitation practice using trenchless technology

2021· article· en· W3139773084 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

VenueWater Practice & Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrenchless technologyRehabilitationMains electricityCurrent (fluid)EngineeringConstruction engineeringCivil engineeringEnvironmental sciencePipeline transportEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The market for water infrastructure rehabilitation is growing rapidly due to the increasing age of underground utilities. Currently, two common water main rehabilitation methods exist: cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) and polymer spray-on coatings. CIPP can provide structural support for both internal and external loads, while spray-on techniques provide chemical resistance as well as adding minor strength to the existing pipe. This paper summarizes water main rehabilitation practice using CIPP and spray-on methods. The history of trenchless rehabilitation technology is discussed, as well as current methodologies and products for water mains. The design, installation, and monitoring of water main rehabilitation products are also summarized, along with the associated risks. Quality assurance and control (QA/QC) methods are included for evaluating existing products and procedures.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.245 · 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