MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385722968 · doi:10.1061/9780784485026.048

Decision Making Process for the Sewer Pipe Liner Evaluation

2023· article· en· W4385722968 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Alavi, Noel Guercio, Nita Kazi, Irene McSweeney, Peter Salvatore

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSanitary sewerPipeline transportTrenchless technologyPipeline (software)RehabilitationModernization theoryEngineeringProcess (computing)Service (business)Construction engineeringCivil engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceBusinessEnvironmental engineeringMechanical engineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A significant percentage of the sewer pipelines in the United States were installed in the early to mid-20th century, and many still in service have exceeded their intended design life. Other sewers installed in the late 1800s also present major challenges where modernization has resulted in other major types of infrastructure, typically installed above deep sewer systems. As a result, there is an increasing need for sewer line rehabilitation or renewal. This paper focuses on informed decision-making and risk analysis for various pipeline rehabilitation options. This evaluation can be further modified based on rehabilitation option availability and market price fluctuations. This paper describes the basis and methodology used for evaluating the design methods and is intended to assist owners and engineers in making better-informed 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 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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207