MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203455084 · doi:10.2166/wpt.2021.094

A review of water quality factors in water main failure prediction models

2021· review· en· W3203455084 on OpenAlex
Z. Monfared, Mohamad Molavi Nojumi, Alireza Bayat

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Practice & Technology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWater qualityQuality (philosophy)Predictive modellingIdentification (biology)Process (computing)Set (abstract data type)Environmental scienceComputer scienceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Water main failure can result from structural failure of the pipes, changes in water quality, or a combination. This paper is a review of articles evaluating water quality factors and subfactors in the development of water main failure prediction models since 2000. A systematic process was implemented to capture the most relevant current published papers. Of 4598 published papers, 304 were screened for water main failure prediction models. The resulting set was further screened for water quality factors and subfactors (e.g., pH, temperature, etc.). This led to the identification of 18 relevant research papers, and each of these was reviewed comprehensively. The water quality-related findings, as well as combinations with other information – such as type of prediction model and type of prediction – are summarized and discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.260 · 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