MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4302615106

Approach to improving the quality of data used to analyse dams - Illustrations by two methods

2014· preprint· en· W4302615106 on OpenAlexaffabout
C. Curt, Richard Gervais

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsHydro-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Computer scienceData scienceEpistemologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessing the safety of a civil engineering structure requires using a large quantity of data. These data are frequently "imperfect", meaning that they comprise uncertainty, imprecision and incompleteness. It is important to develop systems for assessing and controlling these imperfections in order to both quantify the quality of the data used to evaluate the condition of structures and decide on the corrective actions to reduce these imperfections. Here, we propose a generic approach to controlling the quality of the data used when analysing a dam. Different methodologies can be considered to implement this approach and an illustration is given for two methods developed independently: one by Hydro-Québec, in Canada, and another, by Irstea, in France.

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 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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDam Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207