Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bioretention gardens are stormwater management practices capable of providing numerous water quantity and quality benefits. However, previous studies have reported inconsistent removal of nitrogen and phosphorus in these systems. This study used ten, vegetated, mesoscale (0.20 m3), bioretention cells in a field setting to provide a comparison of the nutrient removal capabilities of five, alternative bioretention designs. Applying a synthetic stormwater to the bioretention cells demonstrated that a sandy soil mix can provide a 75.5 and 53.4% reduction in concentrations of total phosphorus and total nitrogen, respectively. Phosphorus removal was found to be only slightly enhanced in bioretention cells where soil was amended with alum-based drinking water treatment residuals, a commercially available oxide-coated media, or a commercially available lanthanum-modified bentonite product. However, improvements in phosphorus removal were observed in some cells when elevated phosphorus loads were applied to evaluate longer term performance. In cells incorporating a permanently saturated zone containing shredded newspaper to promote denitrification, effluent concentrations of nitrate were reduced by >99%, however total nitrogen concentrations increased.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".