MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052371844 · doi:10.1080/1573062x.2014.916314

SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more – The evolution and application of terminology surrounding urban drainage

2014· article· en· W2052371844 on OpenAlexaff
Tim D. Fletcher, William D. Shuster, William F. Hunt, Richard Ashley, David Butler, Scott Arthur, Sam Trowsdale, Sylvie Barraud, Annette Semádeni-Davies, Jean-Luc Bertrand-Krajewski, Peter Steen Mikkelsen, Gilles Rivard, Mathias Uhl, Danielle Dagenais, Maria Viklander

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Water Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalWSP (Canada)
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNorth Carolina State University
KeywordsTerminologyScope (computer science)CredibilityConfusionEnvironmental planningSet (abstract data type)Management scienceEngineering ethicsComputer sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringEnvironmental sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The management of urban stormwater has become increasingly complex over recent decades. Consequently, terminology describing the principles and practices of urban drainage has become increasingly diverse, increasing the potential for confusion and miscommunication. This paper documents the history, scope, application and underlying principles of terms used in urban drainage and provides recommendations for clear communication of these principles. Terminology evolves locally and thus has an important role in establishing awareness and credibility of new approaches and contains nuanced understandings of the principles that are applied locally to address specific problems. Despite the understandable desire to have a ‘uniform set of terminology’, such a concept is flawed, ignoring the fact that terms reflect locally shared understanding. The local development of terminology thus has an important role in advancing the profession, but authors should facilitate communication between disciplines and between regions of the world, by being explicit and accurate in their application.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.013
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1,831
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban Water JournalSame topicUrban Stormwater Management SolutionsFrench-language works237,207