MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283024615 · doi:10.1002/aws2.1288

Evaluating satellite and in situ monitoring technologies for leak detection and response

2022· article· en· W4283024615 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAWWA Water Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsAmerican Water (Canada)
FundersCalifornia Energy Commission
KeywordsLeak detectionCasualLeakEnvironmental scienceEmerging technologiesContinuous monitoringSatelliteComputer scienceRemote sensingEnvironmental resource managementOperations managementEngineeringGeologyEnvironmental engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The California Energy Commission funded a study to evaluate two technologies to assess their usefulness as an early leak detection tool for alerting field teams and to better understand the impact on energy savings through managing water loss. Specifically, the latest in advanced correlating continuous acoustic monitoring and satellite imagery leak detection technologies were examined over a period of 12 months in the Duarte system of California with 4.9 mgd production capacity and representing several pressure zones in the service area. A key conclusion was that both technologies improved the effectiveness of locating subsurface leaks that would have been invisible to the casual observer, and both were potential candidates for future applications. When implemented together in this study, the two technologies found leaks that would have resulted in between 57–170 mil gal of lost water during the study period. This equates to 140–419 MWh of energy savings in California, amounting to cost savings of at least $100,000 for the Duarte system alone during the 12‐month study period.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.240 · 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