The Level of Utilizing Water Pipeline Condition Assessment Tools by Public Owners: A Structured Survey
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proactive maintenance is an essential first step toward healthy infrastructure and sustainable capital spending. Condition assessment tools are utilized to collect data that helps asset owners to assess the structural capacity or detect leaks in water pipelines. While there are various condition assessment tools, in some jurisdictions, such proactive maintenance is not so popular due to funding constraints. Generally, asset owners mainly rely on age to estimate service life concepts in making capital investment decisions. Despite age being a major consideration, the accuracy level is considerably lower compared to advanced field inspections. Currently, the existing literature lacks detailed information on owner preferences on condition assessment programs. Therefore, the main objective of this paper is to collect data from public owners, to help understand the level of utilization of condition assessment tools and other data that assesses the maturity of any condition assessment program. The data is collected and analyzed through a structured survey sent to water pipeline owners. Once completed, the study will help understand the maturity level of condition assessment programs established in many jurisdictions and aid as a tool for future benchmarking activities while recommending continuous improvements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it