Use of geotechnologies in integrated assessment of urban drainage, water resources and urbanization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water resources historically are impacted by urbanization.Urban drainage, which is an inherent consequence of urbanization, is one of the major elements of impact on water resources in the city.However, urban drainage is almost always treated as a sanitation task, and its intrinsic relation to water resources is often not taken into consideration.As a result, drainage management is performed separately and disconnectedly from urban development management and water resources management.By means of a study on the Campeche aquifer in Florianópolis, we have shown that the disconnected management of these three elements creates serious urban and environmental problems.With an integrative method, we have sought to bring previous studies together, by means of geotechnologies such as GIS, to highlight the key elements for the integration of the sectors responsible for management.The present study suggests the creation of a unified database for the drainage network, hydrography and urban infrastructure, as well as the standardization of projects by means of sanitation, water resources and stormwater management plans.We have also shown how the use of these tools can be extended to other locations, thus proving a very promising integrative methodology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".