MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011193148 · doi:10.2166/wst.2009.576

The HSG procedure for modelling integrated urban wastewater systems

2009· article· en· W2011193148 on OpenAlex
Dirk Muschalla, M. Schütze, Kai Schroeder, Michael Bach, Frank Blumensaat, Günter Gruber, Kai Klepiszewski, M. Pabst, Alexander Pressl, Nora Schindler, A.-M. Solvi, Jürgen Wiese

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineSystems engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Management scienceOperations researchBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whilst the importance of integrated modelling of urban wastewater systems is ever increasing, there is still no concise procedure regarding how to carry out such modelling studies. After briefly discussing some earlier approaches, the guideline for integrated modelling developed by the Central European Simulation Research Group (HSG - Hochschulgruppe) is presented. This contribution suggests a six-step standardised procedure to integrated modelling. This commences with an analysis of the system and definition of objectives and criteria, covers selection of modelling approaches, analysis of data availability, calibration and validation and also includes the steps of scenario analysis and reporting. Recent research findings as well as experience gained from several application projects from Central Europe have been integrated in this guideline.

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.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.198 · 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