MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2319353869 · doi:10.1061/41114(371)333

Evaluation of Stormwater Management Practices for Stream Erosion

2010· article· en· W2319353869 on OpenAlexaffabout
James Li, Celia Fan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersMinistry of Environment
KeywordsStormwaterWatershedEnvironmental scienceUrbanizationErosionDetention basinHydrology (agriculture)Low-impact developmentSurface runoffErosion controlUrban streamDuration (music)Water resource managementStormwater managementSTREAMSGeologyComputer scienceGeotechnical engineeringGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reduction of stream erosion after urbanization is a stormwater management objective in Ontario, Canada. In order to evaluate stream erosion potential after urbanization at a small watershed in northern Ontario, a stormwater management model was developed to simulate the flow-duration relationships without and with stormwater management practices. It was found that flow-duration characteristics could change significantly after urbanization and accelerate stream erosion. Extended detention basins with short detention time (24-hour) could control flow-duration characteristics at low flow rates better than those with long detention time (48-hour). If the watershed were to be urbanized beyond 40% of imperviousness, it may not be possible to bring the flow duration curve back to its original position even though various source control measures and detention basins were used. The optimal location of detention ponds for erosion control is dependent upon the range of flows which control the stability of the stream.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes→French-language works237,207→