MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3192521803 · doi:10.1061/9780784483626.041

Cured-in-Place Lining for Watermains: A Municipal Retrospective

2021· article· en· W3192521803 on OpenAlexaff
Yafei Hu

Bibliographic record

VenuePipelines 2021 · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicOdor and Emission Control Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Like most utilities in North America, the City of Regina (City) is facing the challenge of aging infrastructure, including a high rate of annual water main breaks. Repair of the breaks is becoming a notable maintenance concern for the City, as it consumes a significant portion of the City’s maintenance fund. Water main breaks may also be an inconvenience to residents and businesses, and even interrupt the operation of vital services, such as fire-fighting operations. Cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) rehabilitation was one of the options that the City had investigated to proactively rehabilitate the water mains. In 2010, the City started a CIPP pilot project. Since then, the City has relined approximately 21 km of water mains, primarily for small diameter asbestos cement pipes. This paper reviews the relining work, including the challenges and issues faced by the City during quality control practice. The performance of the liners since the pilot work in 2010 is also evaluated, including a detailed analysis of 12 leaks that occurred to the water mains relined by CIPP. Overall, the liners are serving their intended purpose and improving the performance of the City’s water system by mitigating the “ hot spots.” Detailed analysis of the leaks indicates issues that may be faced by other CIPP users, and that need to be improved by CIPP contractors and manufacturers. The retrospect may benefit those utility owners that are looking for alternative options to open cut to rehabilitate their linear water infrastructure.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePipelines 2021Same topicOdor and Emission Control TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207