Earthquake Resilience Framework for a Stormwater Pipe Infrastructure System Integrating the Best Worst Method and Dempster–Shafer Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stormwater pipe infrastructure is a fundamental requirement of any nation, but pipes can be damaged in natural disasters. Consequently, evaluating the resilience of stormwater infrastructure to earthquake damage is an essential duty for any city because it outlines the capability to recover from a disaster after the event. The resilience quantification process needs various data types from various sources, and uncertainty and partial data may be included. This study recommends a resilience assessment framework for stormwater pipe infrastructure facing earthquake hazards using Hierarchical Evidential Reasoning (HER) on the basis of the Dempster–Shafer (D-S) theory. The developed framework was implemented in the City of Regina, SK, Canada to quantify the resilience of the stormwater pipe infrastructure. First, various resilience factors were identified from the literature. Based on experts’ judgment, the weight of these factors was determined using the Best Worst Method (BWM). After that, the resilience was determined using the D–S theory. Finally, sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the sensitivity of the factors of the recommended hierarchical stormwater infrastructure resilience model. The recommended earthquake resilience assessment model produced satisfying outcomes, which showed the condition state of resilience with the degree of uncertainty.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".