MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385723899 · doi:10.1061/9780784485026.032

Extending the Life of RAS Piping for the City of Winnipeg

2023· article· en· W4385723899 on OpenAlexaffabout
C. Neville Dean, Brian Station, Jason Smith, Peter D. Nardini, Brandon Keezer, Aleksander Kupe, Dave Caughlin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegKGS Group (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipingComputer scienceArchitectural engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The City of Winnipeg (city) has undertaken a large-scale rehabilitation of their North End Sewage Treatment Plant. An integral component of this rehabilitation project was the in situ structural renewal of 1,640 LF (500 m) of in-service return activated sludge (RAS) process piping with several active leaks. The city engaged Kontzamanis Graumann Smith MacMillian Inc., Group (KGS Group) as the project’s engineering consultant to evaluate options for strengthening the RAS piping, which range in diameter from 12 in. (300 mm) to 36 in. (900 mm). The city and KGS Group selected external carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) as the rehabilitation method. The CFRP subcontractor, Pullman, mobilized to the project in April 2022 and worked collaboratively alongside the city, KGS, Simpson, Gumpertz and Heger (SGH), and the general contractor—Trotter and Morton. As was expected, the project details evolved frequently in response to as found condition. SGH utilized an in-field engineer and an iterative design process to minimize project delays. The collective team met frequently to resolve these RFIs in a timely fashion. The CFRP component of the project was completed on time with change orders accounting for less than 1% of contract value.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOffshore Engineering and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207