MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2186518364

An innovative method for selecting efficient best management practices

2011· other· en· W2186518364 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Musandji Fuamba

Bibliographic record

VenuePolyPublie (École Polytechnique de Montréal) · 2011
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBest practiceAnalytic hierarchy processDocumentationRainwater harvestingStormwaterRisk analysis (engineering)Process (computing)Stormwater managementQuality (philosophy)Selection (genetic algorithm)Process managementEnvironmental planningBusinessComputer scienceOperations researchEngineeringEnvironmental scienceSurface runoff
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current state of the stormwater management in the province of Quebec in Canada indicates that the issue of uncontrolled rainwater rejection into water receivers is gaining interest from water infrastructure managers. Structural Best Management practices (BMPs) have drawn significant attention given their importance in improving water quality, in effectively addressing water quantity-related issues, and in establishing norms for regulatory compliance. The aim of this paper is to allow current BMPs selection – which at present , due to the lack of appropriate documentation, largely rely on subjective considerations – to be processed through an efficient and innovative methodology as to guarantee the selection of optimal BMPs for a given city area. Such a methodology would enable technical professionals to provide proven and valuable guidance to decision-makers and citizens for the adoption of more sustainable stormwater managing avenues. The proposed method – based on the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) – was applied to a case study in Quebec, and its promising results are here presented.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolyPublie (École Polytechnique de Montréal)Same topicUrban Stormwater Management SolutionsFrench-language works237,207