MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2264478115 · doi:10.13031/2013.7382

Sediment-Removal Efficiency of Vegetative Filter Strips

2001· article· en· W2264478115 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bahram Gharabaghi, H. R. Whiteley, W. T. Dickinson

Bibliographic record

Venue2001 Sacramento, CA July 29-August 1,2001 · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil erosion and sediment transport
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Environmental BiologyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsSedimentFilter (signal processing)Infiltration (HVAC)STRIPSTurbulenceEnvironmental scienceGeologyMaterials scienceSoil scienceGeotechnical engineeringHydrology (agriculture)Composite materialGeomorphologyEngineeringMeteorologyPhysicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Field experiments on vegetative filter strips (VFS) showed average sediment-removalefficiency varied from 50 to 98% as flowpath length increased from 2.44 to 19.52 m. Almost allof the easily removable aggregates (i.e. aggregates larger that 40 mm in diameter) can becaptured within the first five meters of the filter strip. However, the remaining small-sizeaggregates are very difficult to remove by filtering flow through grass media, as even relativelylow levels of turbulent energy in the water is sufficient to keep the finer sediments insuspension. The only effective mechanism for removal of small-size sediments is infiltration.Experiments with appreciable infiltration (low to moderate flow rates on the longer plot lengths),showed removal efficiencies of 90% or higher. The sediment-removal efficiency of the filter stripdoes not increase much by increasing the width of the filter strip beyond ten meters. Improvedefficiency of VFS can be achieved through the installation of a drainage system to increaseinfiltration.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations34
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2001 Sacramento, CA July 29-August 1,2001Same topicSoil erosion and sediment transportFrench-language works237,207