MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154881819 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.r223-22

Surface Infiltration Rate of Permeable Pavements

2005· article· en· W2154881819 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eban Z. Bean, William F. Hunt, David Bidelspach

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurface runoffAsphaltInfiltration (HVAC)Environmental sciencePollutantGeotechnical engineeringAsphalt pavementSurface waterEnvironmental engineeringMaterials scienceGeologyChemistryComposite materialEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asphalt surfaces have greatly increased the amount of pollutant-carrying runoff entering surface waters. To counteract this, permeable pavement can be installed to allow water to infiltrate, thus reducing runoff and acting as a filter. This study tested the surface infiltration rate of 27 permeable pavement sites in North Carolina, Maryland and Delaware. One of these sites in North Carolina was monitored to compare pollutant loads of asphalt runoff to those in infiltrate. Concrete grid pavers (CGP) and permeable interlocking concrete pavers (PICP) were tested with pavement ages ranging from six months to 20 years. Two infiltration tests were run on 14 CGP lots filled with sand. The initial test was on the existing condition of the surface and second test was run after the removal of the top layer of residue (1.3 -1.9 cm) to simulate maintenance. Maintenance improved the infiltration rate on 13 of 14 sites. Analysis of the data showed that maintenance improves surface permeability at a confidence level of 99.8%. The median average infiltration rate increased from 5.0 cm/h, for existing conditions, to 8.0 cm/h after maintenance. Eleven PICP sites were also tested. Sites built in close proximity to loose fine particles had infiltration rates significantly less than sites free of loose fines. Averages of each condition are 60 cm/h and 2000 cm/h respectively. Even the minimum existing infiltration rates were comparable to those of a grassed sandy loam soil. Water quality data included in this study shows the results of six storms from June to October, 2003. With only a few storms to compare,

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.202 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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