MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285209777 · doi:10.1051/e3sconf/202234601012

The development of a risk screening indexing tool for prioritizing dam safety remedial works

2022· article· en· W4285209777 on OpenAlex
Przemysław Zieliński, Pràmod Narayan, Chantal Donnelly, Eric Halpin, Jonathan Quebbeman, Halla Maher Qaddumi, Chabungbam Rajagopal Singh, Satoru Ueda, Marcus J. Wishart

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

VenueE3S Web of Conferences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)Hydro One (Canada)
FundersWorld Bank Group
KeywordsPortfolioRemedial educationRisk assessmentRisk analysis (engineering)Process (computing)EngineeringCommissionSafety monitoringRemedial actionForensic engineeringCivil engineeringComputer scienceBusinessComputer securityPsychologyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under India’s DRIP program over 5,000 large dams are to be rehabilitated in accordance with modern dam safety standards. In order to prioritize the rehabilitation works for such a large number of dams, India’s Central Water Commission, needed a risk screening tool to allow for a portfolio risk screening. The tool was developed by simplifying sound principles of risk analysis followed by a comprehensive validation process. The application of the tool is relatively easy and the process of generating risk index for a single dam may take as little as few hours to 1-2 days, depending on the availability of data and personnel familiar with the dam making the tool ideal for helping to prioritize dam safety remedial projects for India’s dam safety program and for other large portfolio’s around the world.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.207 · 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