Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter explains the differences between the plumbing terms of “tubing,” “piping,” and “hosing.” It is not uncommon for a forensic engineer/scientist to encounter plumbing failures involving tubing, piping, or hosing. Most new forensic engineers or scientists have not been formally trained on plumbing systems and nomenclature unless they worked earlier in the trades, construction, or grew up in rural areas. Plumbing components consist of “tubing,” “piping,” or “hosing” along with associated fittings, valves, control items, and other components. Piping is defined as tubular vessels used in pipeline and piping systems commonly transporting fluids and solids. Cross-linked polyethylene (PEX) products were first developed in - 1965 and introduced commercially in the United States and Canada in - 1980. PEX gained popularity over traditional piping/tubing due to its flexibility, ease of installation, no risk of fire during installation from joining, greater water pressures at fixtures due to fewer sharp turns necessary, and due to being less likely to burst from freezing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.040 |
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".