Using Annual Hydrographs to Determine Effective Impervious Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reducing the ammmt of directly connected impervious areas improves watercourse health and increases the potential for sustainable fish communities in streams.It also reduces the impacts of frequently-occurring rainfall-mnoff events, and shifts watercourse hydrology closer to pre-development conditions.There is increasing focus on low impact development (LID) strategies as a means of improving watercourse health.Accurately determining the reduction of effective impervious area (EIA) has become cmcial for assessing the effectiveness ofthese strategies.Quantifying EIA is also essential in developing and calibrating hydrologic models.In addition, it is important to test the effectiveness of LID strategies over the entire year, to take into account the large variability in antecedent conditions.Continuous simulation models focus on all events throughout the year, and not just a large design event.Although several methods exist for measuring EIA, they tend to overestimate the effectiveness of LID strategies in wet climates when soils are saturated for a significant portion of the year.An annual hydro graph method is proposed to determine EIA.This involves using existing gauged creek systems and rainfall records from rainfall gauging networks.This enables the use of available data to determine a watershed's response to rainfall throughout the year, and thereby compute a year -round EIA.The results of this type of analysis will help to assess the effect of implementing LID strategies for existing or proposed developments, particularly for areas with wet climates.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".