MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2006461315 · doi:10.1061/40644(2002)81

A GIS Nonpoint Source Pollution Model for the Las Vegas Valley

2002· article· en· W2006461315 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marcelo Reginato, Thomas C. Piechota

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVedecká Grantová Agentúra MŠVVaŠ SR a SAVYork University
KeywordsNonpoint source pollutionWatershedEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Water qualitySurface runoffLas vegasAridWater resource managementPollutionGeographic information systemGeographyRemote sensingGeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Las Vegas Valley is located in Southern Nevada where the average rainfall rarely exceeds five inches per year. The majority of rainfall is concentrated in the winter and summer periods, thus characterizing the region as semi-arid. The Las Vegas Valley watershed is divided into nine sub watersheds that form a 3968 km2 (1532 mi2) watershed. The entire watershed drains first to the Las Vegas Wash, and then to Lake Mead—the main source of drinking water for Southern Nevada. Approximately 85% of the watershed is undeveloped natural desert; however, some areas are highly developed. The nonpoint source pollution from urban runoff has direct water quality impacts on Lake Mead (the receiving water body). Excessive nutrients from nonpoint sources have been identified as one of the possible causes of excessive algae growth in the Spring of 2001. In this study, a Geographic Information System (GIS) -based model that uses the Simple Model is used to better understand how nonpoint sources contribute to total pollutant loads in the lake. The loads from the model are compared to waste water treatment loads for 2000 and 2001.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies→French-language works237,207→