MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Important Factors For Water Main Break Prediction Across 13 Canadian Systems

2022· article· en· W4392420753 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rebecca Dziedzic, Sadaf Gharaati

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water main breaks can jeopardize the safe delivery of clean water and incur significant costs. To mitigate these risks, water main breaks have been predicted through physical and statistical approaches. The latter are less complex and can provide satisfactory results with less data. While many factors can contribute to breaks, the factors applied in previous studies depended on local data availability. Because other studies have focused on a few systems at a time, a broad comparison of factor importance has not been possible. This limits the understanding of the impact of different factors on water main deterioration. The present study identifies the most important factors driving water main breaks across 13 Canadian water systems. Twenty-eight factors describing physical, historical, protection, environmental and operational attributes were compiled and cleaned. Availability of each attribute differed by system. To evaluate the importance of both numerical and categorical attributes together, two approaches were tested, categorical principal component analysis (CATPCA) and recursive feature elimination with cross-validation (RFECV). The target variable in both cases was set as yearly break status, either broken or non-broken. While CATPCA provides the contribution of each attribute to the target, RFECV provides a tuned predictive model with selected attributes. The RFECV approach was applied with Random Forest and XGBoost models, both types of machine learning models which have been shown to produce accurate results in water main break prediction. Results from both approaches showed that physical and historical attributes are generally important across all systems. Other types of data, i.e. protection and operational are less available. When protection data is available it was shown to be even more important than physical and historical attributes. Specifically, with CATPCA, lining age and lining material were found to have a higher contribution to break status than pipe age and lining status. With RFECV lining age and lining material were also included in the best models, in particular for systems with greater percentage of lined pipes. These results indicate the choice and timing of lining are key in extending the service life of water mains. Furthermore, this data should be collected if protection practices are in place, to more accurately predict deterioration and future costs. The results also point to an opportunity to collect more operational data. Among attributes collected by only one utility, pipe pressure, roughness, and dead-end, were found to be important in CATPCA and RFECV. Thus, pipe dissipation and water stagnation could lead to greater pipe deterioration. Further studies are required to quantify the impacts of different pressure ranges and network designs on deterioration.

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 score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.171 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207