MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluating the Impact of Climate Change Mitigation Strategies on the Optimal Design and Expansion of the Amherstview, Ontario, Water Network: Canadian Case Study

2011· article· en· W1997419256 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ehsan Roshani, Stephanie P. MacLeod, Yves Filion

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Resources Planning and Management · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersScience and Engineering Research BoardNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGreenhouse gasDiscountingClimate changeEnvironmental scienceCarbon priceCarbon taxEnergy consumptionEnvironmental economicsNatural resource economicsEnvironmental engineeringEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this paper is to assess the impact of proposed Canadian climate change mitigation policies (discounting and carbon pricing) on cost, energy use, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the single-objective design/expansion optimization of the Amherstview water distribution system in Amherstview, Ontario, Canada. The single-objective optimization problem is solved with the elitist genetic algorithm (EGA). The optimization approach is used in a parametric analysis to examine the impact of discounting and carbon pricing on GHG reductions for cement-mortar ductile iron and polyvinyl chloride pipe materials. Preliminary results indicate that the discount rate and carbon prices investigated had no significant influence on energy use and GHG mass in the Amherstview system and did not meet the emission-reduction targets set by the Canadian government. This result was attributed to a number of factors, including adequately installed hydraulic capacity in the Amherstview system, the use of a time-declining GHG emission intensity factor, and the scope of the expansion problem.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations24
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Resources Planning and ManagementSame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207