MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315438927 · doi:10.1061/9780784479162.116

A Critical Review of Water Reuse in North America: The Historical Shift from Technological Priorities to Public Perception Studies

2015· review· en· W2315438927 on OpenAlexaff
D. Al-Ali, Yves Filion

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2015 · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Reuse
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReuseScarcityWater scarcityPopulationProcess (computing)Environmental planningWater resourcesEngineeringComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceSociologyWaste managementEcologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water reuse is an increasingly popular consideration for municipalities, developers, and businesses. Currently, the majority of water reuse applications originate from Australia, Southeast Asian nations, and the Middle East. Stresses posed by population growth and/or water scarcity seem to be the primary drivers for the prevalence of reuse applications in these regions. However, an increasing number of regions in North America are in the process of implementing or have already implemented some form of water reuse. As a result, this paper aims to present an overview of the history and current state of reuse in North America, with the objective of defining past and current challenges, gaps in current research, and necessary steps for more robust reuse applications. Ultimately, the paper critically assesses the trajectory of reuse projects in North America from the 1970s onwards; highlighting the gradual shift in focus from technological feasibility to public perception studies associated with water reuse.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2015Same topicWastewater Treatment and ReuseFrench-language works237,207