MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2244868365 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.r206-20

Connecting Pipes and Plants: Concurrent Hydrodynamic Simulation of the Hydraulic Performance of a Collection System and a Wastewater Treatment Plant

2000· article· en· W2244868365 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chris Ward, Steven Chan, Faruk Kharadi, Philip P. Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWastewaterSewage treatmentEnvironmental scienceBar (unit)Downstream (manufacturing)EngineeringWaste managementEnvironmental engineeringCivil engineeringOperations managementGeographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The City of Edmonton's Gold Bar Wastewater Treatment Plant (GBWWTP) is at the downstream end of a collection system servicing approximately 634,000 people plus industrial and commercial areas.The plant has a relatively flat hydraulic profile, such that the effluent weir on the primary tanks is 0.23 m above the invert of the incoming conduit.The effluent weir on the secondary clarifiers is only 0.38 m below the primary tank weir.For years the hydraulic simulation of the collection system has proceeded on the assumption of a controlled head relationship at the headworks of the treatment plant.This has been a reasonable approach when evaluating the performance of the collection systems.However as work has progressed on the City's combined sewer overf1ow strategy and a preferred method of control is to convey more flow to the GBWWTP for treatment and expand treatment capacity, the hydraulic gradeline at the inlet, and the headworks of the plant become important elements.Without lowering the gradeline at the plant inlet, it is difficult to achieve the objective of treating a flow rate of 1600 MUd on a sustained basis.Typically only during the largest events could such a high flow to the plant be possible and only for a short period of time.Tnerefore it was necessary to determine means oflowering the hydraulic profile at the headworks of the plant, and at the same time evaluating the system f1ows reaching the plant.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Management ModelingSame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207