MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326727278 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.r245-13

Developing a Plan to Control Combined Sewer Floatables in Ottawa, ON

2012· article· en· W2326727278 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Thomas Newman, Louis Julien

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlan (archaeology)Environmental planningNuisanceUrban runoffCombined sewerSurface runoffControl (management)Environmental scienceGeographyWater resource managementPolitical scienceStormwaterArchaeologyManagementEconomicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Floatable pollution is an aesthetic nuisance often associated with runoff from urban areas and other sources.In 2008, the City of Ottawa, Ontario initiated a study of floatable pollution in an effort to develop a pollution prevention and control plan to control combined sewer floatables in compliance with applicable Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) regulations.The floatables study, performed by G. A. Clark and Associates Limited and HydroQual, Inc., included field measurements and desktop analyses to define the nature of the combined sewer floatables issue in Ottawa, and to estimate floatables capture under existing conditions and with selected control alternatives.The study recommended the implementation of several actions to cost effectively improve floatables control.Study recommendations included continuing existing activities that control street litter, implementing the real time control (RTC) program already underway to control combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges, installing gas traps on all catchbasins in the study area, and conducting floatables monitoring and analyses for a period of three years to track the annual capture of floatables. The Floatables ProblemFloatables discharged into receiving waters create a variety of problems.Visible floating material degrades the aesthetics of waterways and their shorelines, which in turn can contribute to loss of use (e.g.beach closings) and can have an adverse economic impact on recreation and business in an area.Debris slicks represent a potential hazard to commercial and recreational boating.Cases are

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Management ModelingSame topicUrban Stormwater Management SolutionsFrench-language works237,207