MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7030232185

Modelling the deterioration of water mains and planning their renewal

2002· article· en· W7030232185 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMains electricityBreakageWater resourcesWater supplyResource (disambiguation)Moisture
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effective planning of water distribution system renewal requires accurate quantification of the structural deterioration of water mains. As typical water distribution systems comprise hundreds and even thousands of buried pipes, direct inspection of all of them is often prohibitively expensive. Identifying water main breakage patterns over time is an effective and inexpensive alternative to measure the structural deterioration of a water distribution system. National Research Council of Canada is developing a prototype computer application to help model the deterioration rates of water mains and subsequently plan their renewal.The analysis of water main breakage patterns considers time-dependent factors such as temperature, soil moisture (rainfall deficit), main replacement rates and cathodic protection (CP) strategies, including hotspot CP as well as methodical retrofit CP. The influence of each of these factors on pipe breakage rate can be quantified to (a) identifythe 'true' background deterioration rates of buried water mains, and (b) project the impact of various operational strategies on future breakage rates. Once the background ageing rates of water mains are known, their life cycle costs can be evaluated. As well, the future impact of various operational strategies on these life cycle costs can be assessed. Subsequently, strategies can be fine-tuned to achieve maximum efficiency in resource allocation.

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 score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.151 · 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
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207