MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288441613 · doi:10.1061/9780784484289.025

Failure Analysis of Asbestos Cement Pipe Using Recent Main Break Data

2022· article· en· W4288441613 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shaoqing Ge, James R. Chelius

Bibliographic record

VenuePipelines 2022 · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsAmerican Water (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsbestos cementCementAsbestosForensic engineeringEnvironmental sciencePetroleum engineeringGeologyMaterials scienceEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asbestos cement (AC) pipe was used as pipe material starting from 1930s. It was widely used during 1950s–1960s, and it phased out in the US in 1980s due to health concerns and the availability of PVC pipe. It was estimated that 600,000 mi AC pipe were installed in the United States and Canada. Several studies show that AC pipes are experiencing accelerated failure in recent years. To prioritize the AC main replacements, it is important to understand the performance of AC pipe in the water system. This paper analyzes the failures of AC pipe using the most recent 12-year main break data. AC pipes in coastal area and inland area were analyzed separately to understand their break rates. The results of this analysis could help utilities better understand the performance of AC pipe and prioritize AC pipe replacement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePipelines 2022Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207