MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332202147 · doi:10.2166/wst.2013.450

Assessing the potential for restoration of surface permeability for permeable pavements through maintenance

2013· article· en· W2332202147 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer Drake, Andrea Bradford

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloggingInfiltration (HVAC)StormwaterPermeability (electromagnetism)Environmental scienceGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringSurface runoffMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Permeable pavements (PPs) have been in use as stormwater management systems in Canada and the United States for over 20 years. After years of exposure to sediment and debris build-up, surface clogging reduces the infiltration of stormwater and inhibits the hydraulic and environmental functions of the pavement. Removal of surface material has been shown to restore infiltration but the majority of studies have been limited to small-scale testing. This paper presents the results of small- and full-sized equipment testing aimed at restoring surface permeability, including the first testing of regenerative-air and vacuum-sweeping streetsweepers in Ontario. Maintenance achieved partial restoration of PP surface permeability. Post-treatment surface infiltration rates displayed large spatial variability, highlighting that localized conditions throughout the pavement have a confounding influence on the overall effectiveness of maintenance. The impact of maintenance may be improved by establishing regular cleaning intervals and developing instructional guidelines for pavement owners and equipment operators.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations72
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicUrban Stormwater Management SolutionsFrench-language works237,207