Quantifying the effectiveness of cathodic protection in water mains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cathodic protection (CP) of metallic water mains has been proven in many cases to be an effective method of reducing breakage frequency and extending the useful life of pipes, however, the effectiveness of CP can vary with specific conditions of water mains. The effectiveness of CP can ultimately be expressed in terms of economic benefits obtained as a result of reduction in breakage frequency and deferral of pipe replacement. Quantifying CP effectiveness can prove to be challenging because there are many factorscontributing to variability in water main breaks while few water utilities have sufficient data to support credible research efforts. In this paper we present an approach that was developed in collaboration with 12Canadian water utilities from Quebéc, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Breakage patterns, before and after implementation of CP, are statistically analysed. Contributing factors such as pipe and soil characteristics, climatic changes and the type of CP (retrofit or hotspot) are explicitly considered. Once the parameters of these breakage patterns are extracted, a thorough economic analysis is performed. A computer application is being developed to facilitate the usage of this approach for the long-term planning of water main management and renewal.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".