MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7083577076 · doi:10.1061/jpsea2.pseng-1805

Review on the Inclusion of Climate Factors in Water Main Failure Models

2025· article· en· W7083577076 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecipitationClimate changeMains electricityPredictive modellingWater supplyDam failureClimate modelHydrology (agriculture)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Failure of water mains can disrupt essential services, increase costs, and pose risk to public safety and health; therefore, accurate predictions of failure are important to infrastructure management. This study focuses on climate factors due to their impact on water main failures, which is less explored compared to other factors. It systematically reviews existing literature related to water main failure prediction models with the objective of gaining a better understating of the effect of climatic factors (a subcategory of environmental factors) on water main failures. More than 300 papers related to water main prediction models were identified and screened for climatic factors. Of these 300 research papers, 15 studies related to climatic factors were identified and reviewed in detail to evaluate the effect of climatic subfactors on the water main failures. The climatic parameters considered as parameters in water main failure models include temperature, rain deficit, drought, freezing index, and precipitation. The findings indicate that temperature and precipitation are the primary climatic factors influencing water main failures. Cold conditions were found to elevate failure rates in CI, PVC, and DI pipes, while warm conditions led to increased failure rates in steel and AC pipes. Additionally, pipes of various materials and sizes were found to have higher failure rates during seasons with low precipitation.

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)0.004
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and PracticeSame topicPersonality Traits and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207