MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7045431243

Alternative strategies for pipeline maintenance/renewal

2004· article· en· W7045431243 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMains electricityPipeline (software)Fuzzy logicNational GridElectricityPipeline transportRisk managementDistribution (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses decision-making issues faced by most water utilities regarding their water mains. An overview is provided to explain the difference between failure management of small-diameter mains in distribution systems and failure prevention in large-diameter transmission pipelines. The paper further describes past and on-going research at the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) on these issues. A description is provided for the application of fuzzy logic to assess failure risk of large diametertransmission pipelines. Case studies are described to illustrate the application of a multivariatetime-exponential model to historical failure rates in small-diameter distribution mains. The impact of time-dependent factors on water main breaks is demonstrated, with special emphasis on the effect of various cathodic protection measures on the life-cycle costs of water mains.

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.230 · 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