MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3189704695 · doi:10.1061/9780784483626.001

A Case Study on the City of Calgary Rangeview Sanitary Trunk Pipeline Project

2021· article· en· W3189704695 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brent N. Jones, Jesse L. Remenda, Maureen C. Carlin

Bibliographic record

VenuePipelines 2021 · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)Computer scienceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this two-part case study is to highlight the Rangeview Sanitary Trunk Pipeline Project (RST) currently under construction in Calgary, AB, Canada. Once completed, the system will provide wastewater services for projected flows from Calgary’s expanding population. The new pipeline will connect to the existing Cranston Sanitary Chamber before travelling through the wastewater system to the treatment plant. This first part of the case study will explore project development specific to the trenchless scope of work including construction feasibility, geotechnical investigations, engineering design and development, permitting, and the procurement process. In addition, shaft design will be thoroughly covered as the system utilized involved an innovative construction method of a segmental shaft using a cutting edge and jacks. A second and complimentary case study will be submitted at a later date that will explore the complete microtunnelling construction execution with regard to equipment, manpower, scheduling, safety, and overall lessons learned during field operations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePipelines 2021Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207