Building an Integrated Water–Land Use Database for Defining Benchmarks, Conservation Targets, and User Clusters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water utilities have large amounts of data at their disposal, which are seldom being used to their full potential. Integrating water billing records with land-use and demographic data organizes information and makes inherent correlations easier to understand, facilitating communication to stakeholders. This data was integrated for three Ontario (Canada) municipalities, Barrie, Guelph, and London. A summary tool was created, with proposed metrics and charts, that facilitates comparisons between cities, definition of benchmarks, and identification of targets for conservation. More than 60% of consumption in these cities is residential, and mostly lies below the Ontario average of 267 L/cap·day. Water user clusters were created through self-organizing maps, K-means, and hierarchical clustering, and selected according to their pseudo-F and Rand statistics. Users within the same or similar property codes were found to cluster together. The application of data-mining methods provides actionable information for utilities seeking to reduce demands and increase system sustainability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".