MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7047839943

Identification of the Most Important Factors Driving Watermain Failure

2022· dissertation· en· W7047839943 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) · 2022
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMagnetic Field Sensors Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorical variableIdentification (biology)Boosting (machine learning)Dimensionality reductionFeature (linguistics)Random forestCurse of dimensionality
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As essential infrastructure, water distribution systems provide water to the vital needs of individuals, businesses, and industries. Watermain failure jeopardizes water systems' ability to deliver clean water safely. The main target of this study was to identify the most influential factors on watermain failure across Canada. Dimensionality reduction approaches were applied to watermain data from thirteen Canadian cities, Barrie, Calgary, Region of Durham, Halifax, Kitchener, Region of Markham, Region of Waterloo, Saskatoon, St. John’s, Vancouver, Victoria, Waterloo, and Winnipeg. While previous studies have focused on small datasets of a few cities at a time, the present study compares various factors in different networks with different characteristics. Multiple physical, historical, protection, operational, and environmental factors were compared. Two target attributes were defined, current rate of failure and break status. A correlation analysis was applied to each city to identify the relationships between different attributes and the targets. Four dimensionality reduction approaches were employed to evaluate the impacts of different factors on the targets and identify the most important factors The four approaches are Factor Analysis of Mixed Data (FAMD), Categorical PCA (CATPCA), Random Forest Recursive Feature Elimination (RF-RFECV), and Extreme Gradient Boosting Recursive Feature Elimination (XGBOOST-RFECV). Results indicate CATPCA is more reliable than other approaches. Furthermore, protection activities were found to be more important than physical and historical attributes in most utilities. Thus, the collection of protection data should be prioritized for utilities with higher rates of protection activities, especially if they have already collected data on fundamental physical and historical attributes. While few utilities collect data on environmental, operational, and certain physical factors such as roughness, dead-end, restrained, and pipe depth, these were also found to be important and should be further investigated. These findings create the foundation for a new data collection framework for predicting main breaks.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.240
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)Same topicMagnetic Field Sensors TechniquesFrench-language works237,207