MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318947070 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.r228-25

Determining Peak Flow Recurrence in Combined Basins with Limited Flow Data Using Genetic Algorithm Calibration

2008· article· en· W2318947070 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hazem Gheith, Mary Carmichael, Greg Barden, Mary Cherian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSanitary sewerFlow (mathematics)Plan (archaeology)CalibrationTrunkEnvironmental scienceAlgorithmComputer scienceGenetic algorithmHydrology (agriculture)GeographyEngineeringMathematicsEcologyStatisticsMachine learningArchaeologyEnvironmental engineeringBiologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The City of Columbus, Ohio, completed a comprehensive Wet Weather Management Plan (WWMP) to mitigate hydraulic deficiencies in the City's main trunk sewers and to perform a Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) to address combined sewer overflows (CSO) to the Scioto and Olentangy Rivers. The recommended solution includes a deep tunnel that will capture combined sewage overflows from the downtown CSO regulators. This combined flow tunnel will ensure that peak flow from the downtown combined sewer basins is captured up to a specific peak flow recurrence level. Due to the lack of long-term flow meter and downtown rainfall data, it was difficult to estimate peak flows for selected recurrence levels. Therefore, the design team proposed a procedure where available two to three-years of quality-checked flow meter data and concurrent 15-min rain gauge data between the years 2000 and 2003 was used to calibrate a SWMM model using the PCSWMM Genetic Algorithm Calibration (GAC). The long-term hourly rainfall data, collected by the National Weather Service at Port Columbus International Airport, in conjunction with the calibrated SWMM 4.4h model was then used to generate 56 y of flow records from each combined basin.

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 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 score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.190 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Management ModelingSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207