Sizing a New CSO Storage Tank using Continuous SWMM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sizing a New CSO Storage Tank using Continuous SWMMThe Region ofHamilton-Wentworth completed a Pollution Control Plan (PCP) in 1991 to address pollution fi•om 23 combined sewer overflows ( CSOs) which discharged to local receiving waters.The PCP recommended the construction of 10-12 underground storage tanks to intercept and detain CSOs at these outfalls during wet weather, for subsequent conveyance to and treatment by the Woodward Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant during dry weather.The target CSO frequency from the tanks was 1-4 CSOs per year, and an 87-95% reduction in previously existing annual CSO volumes.The Region has made significant progress with the implementation of its PCP since 1991.Five CSO storage tanl(s are in operation.Together these facilities provide approximately 193,000 m 3 of additional CSO storage volume.Four tanks have been constructed since the completion of the PCP and were designed to reduce the number of CSOs at nine former outfalls from up to 29/y to 1-3/y (May to October).Construction of the first tank, a 70,000 m 3 facility located at the east end of Greenhill A venue, was completed in 1988 prior to the completion ofthe PCP.This tank was designed to retain the runoff from a 15 mm storm.Storms of this size occur fairly frequently~ and as a result, the Greenhill CSO tank typically overflows about 13 times/y (May to October).The Region has decided to construct a second storage tank to improve the level of CSO control at the Greenhill outfall and to meet new provincial CSO control objectives set out in the Ontario Ministry of the Environment's Procedure F-5-5.The sizing ofthe Stirrup, M. 2001."Sizing a New CSO Storage Tank using Continuous SWMM."
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".