MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014067250 · doi:10.1139/l02-058

Nouvelle approche pour déterminer la distribution des temps de séjour dans les réservoirs d'eau potable en régime non permanent

2002· article· en· W2014067250 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Éric Mainville, Vincent Gauthier, Daniel Lavallée, Claude Marché

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResidence time distributionTRACERWater flowFlow (mathematics)Environmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringPhysicsMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drinking water storage tanks are used to respond to fluctuating demand and to maintain water pressure in the distribution network. In drinking water plants, they are also used for disinfection. In both cases, a good knowledge of the residence time distribution (RTD) is important. An easy way to obtain the water RTD in a drinking water tank is to perform a tracer study. Nevertheless, "classical" tracing techniques can only be used under steady flow conditions. To cope with that, this study proposes a new approach to extend the application of tracer tests to unsteady flow conditions. This new approach is based on signal processing. It has been tested numerically and on a pilot scale model. The numerical tests have shown that this technique can be used for determining the RTD twice more rapidly than the "classical" methods. Thus, this technique allows to approach the knowledge of the RTD under unsteady flow conditions. Pilot scale tests have shown the need for other improvements to bring the quality of the results obtained to the same level of goodness as those obtained from a theorical example.Key words: drinking water, storage tanks, water quality, tracer study, residence time distribution, signal processing, unsteady flow.

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 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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.165
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207