MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317379274 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.r246-15

Shades of Green: Using SWMM LID Controls to Simulate Green Infrastructure

2013· article· en· W2317379274 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreen infrastructureStorm Water Management ModelLow-impact developmentStormwater managementEnvironmental planningBusinessUrban infrastructureStormUrban planningStormwaterCivil engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental scienceGeographyMeteorologySurface runoffEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Green infrastructure is increasingly being considered for application in urban storm water management designs. Many municipalities, regulatory agencies and advocacy groups promote the use of low impact development (LID) to reduce runoff and increase infiltration. To show LID benefits, engineers must quantify the advantages of green versus traditional grey infrastructure. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) updated its Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) with explicit LID controls in 2009 to assist engineers in quantifying green infrastructure benefits SWMM can now simulate five LID devices: bioretention cells; infiltration trenches; porous pavements; rain barrels; and vegetated swales.

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.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.209 · 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