MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111376425 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.r223-24

Sources of Pollutants in Urban Areas (Part 2) - Recent Sheetflow Monitoring

2005· article· en· W2111376425 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert E. Pitt, Roger T. Bannerman, Shirley E. Clark, Derek Williamson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental sciencePollutantEnvironmental planningEnvironmental chemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two research projects that examined source area sheetflows that were conducted in the 1990s are high-lighted in this chapter.These are a comprehensive project conducted in Birmingham, AL, as part of a project developing a control strategy for critical source areas, and a series of related projects conducted in Wisconsin as part of the DNR's efforts in calibrating the Source Loading and Management Model (SLAMM).A bibliography of recent source area monitoring activities by other researchers is also included in this chapter.These recent projects conducted in Alabama and Wisconsin are more comprehensive than the earlier monitoring efforts described in the previous chapter.These large projects included a wide range of land uses, source sources, and pollutants, in coordinated monitoring efforts.This information complements the data presented previously.24.1 Birmingham, Alabama, Sheetflow Monitoring Pitt, et al. (1995) studied stormwater runoff samples from a variety of source areas under different rain conditions in Birmingham, AL.All of the samples were analyzed in filtered (0.45 µm filter) and non-filtered forms to enable

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Management ModelingSame topicUrban Stormwater Management SolutionsFrench-language works237,207