An Evaluation on the Use of Ultra Low-Flow Toilets In Four Developing Countries as a Means to Contribute to Water Resource Sustainability
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This paper is an investigation into the use of water-saving toilets by developing countries to clarify whether their application can help promote water resource sustainability. To begin this evaluation, theoretical data collection is made of toilet water-use prior to and after the hypothetical installation of these conserving toilets to determine quantitative statistics between each chosen country in the analysis of water conserved. By determining each country’s theoretical percent of water usage savings and comparing these results between the various countries, an evaluation as to the affect these ultra low-flow toilets (ULF) have on water conservation is made. Secondly, an evaluation from this data is made on the impact each country had on water usage and therefore the percentage of savings it contributed towards water conservation. Lastly, a comparison between each country was theoretically presented to infer individually and collectively the contribution possible towards global water resource sustainability. Australia was chosen to be in this evaluation because it is a country experiencing severe drought conditions and one which could benefit profoundly due to its’ inherent environment. The United States was chosen because of their enormous water usage and ensuing, diminishing supply. The remaining countries, Canada and the United Kingdom, were chosen randomly of data available between the remaining developed countries with a high percentage of domestic water usage. The research that supports ULF toilets as a feasible means to conserve water and therefore have more water available for delivery is supported by studies, yet there is still controversy over the efficient design of these toilets and the 1992 U.S. Energy and Conservation Act mandated for ULF toilets to be installed. 1 This paper addresses the validity of this opposition as well as evaluates the contribution toilets could make towards water resource sustainability, especially when the engineering design is adequate. The purpose of this paper is to confirm a need for engineering education and industry to address this issue jointly and how their involvement could contribute towards global water resource sustainability and world peace.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».