MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145590448 · doi:10.2166/wqrj.2009.004

Treatment Performance of an Extensive Vegetated Roof in Waterloo, Ontario

2009· article· en· W2145590448 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kyle Vander Linden, Micheal Stone

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoofStormEnvironmental scienceStormwaterPrecipitationGreen roofHydrology (agriculture)Surface runoffMeteorologyGeotechnical engineeringGeologyEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Vegetated roof technologies are used as treatment measures to mitigate the effects of urban stormwater. A mass balance approach was used to assess the treatment performance of a vegetated roof located on the City Hall in Waterloo, Ontario. The vegetated and control roof sections were instrumented to measure precipitation, storage, and outflow for 18 storm events from June to October, 2006. Concentrations of suspended solids, total phosphorus (TP), and SRP (SRP) in precipitation and roof (vegetated and control) runoff were measured. A total of 155.6 mm of rain fell during the study period. The vegetated roof retained 64.5 mm (43.9%) of the total rainfall while the control roof retained approximately 5.1 mm (4.0%). For individual rain events, the vegetated roof retained an average of 3.5 mm (47.6%), while the control roof retained approximately 0.3 mm (4.7%). Water retention varied with storm size, season, and frequency of storm events. The vegetated roof retained 80.1% of precipitation for storm events ≤3.5 mm, and 34.9% for storm events >3.5 mm. TP and SRP concentrations from the vegetated roof were significantly higher than either the precipitation or runoff from the control roof.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicUrban Stormwater Management SolutionsFrench-language works237,207