MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Vulnerability of Drinking Water Treatment Plants to Low Water Levels in the St. Lawrence River

2006· article· en· W2111662981 on OpenAlexaff
Annie Carrière, Benoît Barbeau, Judith Cantin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Resources Planning and Management · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceVulnerability (computing)Dispose patternWater supplyWater resource managementEnvironmental engineeringImpossibilityWater treatmentClimate changeHydrology (agriculture)EngineeringWaste managementEcologyBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This project’s main objective was to determine the vulnerability of water treatment plants (WTPs) along the lower St. Lawrence River to water level fluctuations, which included the effects of both regulation and climate change. Of the 30 WTPs investigated, three were found to be vulnerable to flow conditions experienced in the past (last 100 years). The vulnerability being dictated by the impossibility of supplying the maximum water demand for which the plant was originally designed. For large facilities that dispose multiple equipments (e.g., two wells or two intakes), a large fraction of the production could be maintained at a critical level. For smaller plants, on the other hand, the situation could be more critical. Insufficient water in the well, caused by low water levels in the river, could cause pumping problems or interrupted distribution, but this can be remedied more easily than in larger plants.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Resources Planning and ManagementSame topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207