MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385549909 · doi:10.1061/jwrmd5.wreng-5896

Review of Critical Factors Affecting the Failure of Water Pipeline Infrastructure

2023· article· en· W4385549909 on OpenAlexaff
Zainab Almheiri, Mohamed A. Meguid, Tarek Zayed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Resources Planning and Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportUrbanizationEnvironmental scienceWater supplyPipeline (software)Water resource managementPopulationRisk analysis (engineering)Environmental resource managementNatural resource economicsBusinessEnvironmental engineeringComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A growing population and urbanization place increased demands on water supply and distribution networks. Pipelines are one of the most critical components of water supply systems. It is, therefore, necessary to identify the relevant factors that affect the deterioration of water distribution pipelines. This will help decision makers in future planning and prioritization of the required maintenance. In this study, a systematic review is performed to identify critical factors that affect the failure of water pipelines. A meta-analysis is conducted to determine the relative importance of each factor that contributes to pipe failure. In addition, the source of contradictory results across studies is investigated. The results show that climatic factors, such as air temperature, minimum antecedent precipitation index, and net evaporation, contribute to water pipe failure. Additionally, the results of subgroup meta-analyses show that primary sources, such as pipe material and water pipe size, can lead to high heterogeneity across studies. This study is expected to help water utility owners to collect relevant data and make timely renewal decisions.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Resources Planning and ManagementSame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207