Edmonton’s Draft Guidelines for Constructed Stormwater Wetlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The City of Edmonton, Alberta issued a document Draft Guidelines for Constructed Stormwater Wetlands to assist developers who wish to use constructed wetlands for stormwater management. Urban runoff can be a significant source of contaminants to receiving water bodies. Contaminants may include suspended solids, organic matter, nutrients, bacteria, metals, hydrocarbons and pesticides. Although economical stormwater flow control remains the primary function of stormwater management facilities, there is growing concern for the quality of stormwater discharges, leading to an interest in using wetlands to improve the quality of stormwater discharges. Edmonton accepts constructed wetlands as an alternative means of managing stormwater. Other benefits of wetlands include aesthetics, public enjoyment and wildlife habitat. The City’s draft guidelines are intended to optimize the design of constructed wetlands for water quality improvements including suspended solids removal, drainage area, soil permeability, vegetation, water depth, wetland area, wetland volume, length to width ratio, forebays, inlets and outlets, grading, floatables and oil and grease, maintenance, monitoring, signage, secondary uses, land ownership, access, fencing, wildlife and mosquitoes.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
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".