MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074148812 · doi:10.1080/1573062x.2013.763996

Potential and limitations of modern equipment for real time control of urban wastewater systems

2013· article· en· W2074148812 on OpenAlexaff
Alberto Campisano, J. Cabot Ple, Dirk Muschalla, Martin Pleau, Peter A. Vanrolleghem

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Water Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)ImplementationContext (archaeology)Risk analysis (engineering)Systems engineeringComputer scienceControl (management)Field (mathematics)SustainabilityReal-time Control SystemEngineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real Time Control (RTC) has become an accepted technique for improving the performance of Urban Drainage Systems (UDS) due to its flexibility and sustainability. Numerous implementations of RTC have been reported during the last decades. At the same time, guideline documents and state-of-the-art reports have been published. Whereas the general aspects and challenges of planning and installation of RTC systems are well covered, there is a lack of information about the adequate equipment for RTC of UDS. After identifying and briefly discussing the basic components of RTC systems for UDS, this paper describes the specific components in detail. This comprises the introduction of available technologies for sensors, actuators, controllers and telemetry systems in the context of RTC and the discussion of their potential and limitations. Lessons learned from the field operational experiences and future trends and challenges are identified.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations121
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban Water JournalSame topicWater Quality Monitoring TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207