Use of Monte Carlo Simulation in Long-Term Capital Planning of Rehabilitation of Water Distribution Networks
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
Long-term capital planning of intervention programs for water distribution networks involves the selection of pipe for intervention by applying the appropriate strategies such as replacement, lining, or cathodic protection as examples. A proposed program consists of both the selection of pipe and the time at which the interventions are to be performed. The assessment of the costs and benefits of long-term programs necessarily require a prediction model to forecast water main break rates into the future. However, in proposing a rehabilitation scenario the use of predicted failure rates can be problematic in the immediate short-term. There is always some variation expected between predicted failure rates and observed failure rates. Failure history rather than predicted failure rates is the preferred method for selecting pipes for intervention in the short-term. Replacing a pipe that has not failed cannot be justified on the grounds that it is predicted to fail. Therefore, long-term planning models should transition from pipe selection based on past failure history for the immediate present to selection based on predicted failure rates in the distant future. This paper describes how Monte Carlo simulation can be used to shift from short-term, history-based modeling to long-term, prediction-based modeling in a single planning scenario. The method is demonstrated using examples from the City of Hamilton, Ontario.
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 | 0.000 | 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