MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Decision support system for optimization of permits for wastewater discharge

2018· article· en· W2896549436 on OpenAlexaff
Joaquin Ignácio Bonnecarrère Garcia, André Schardong, Rubem La Laina Porto

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Brasileira de Recursos Hídricos · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsWastewaterDecision support systemFlexibility (engineering)Water qualityAgency (philosophy)LegislationProcess (computing)Computer scienceSet (abstract data type)Risk analysis (engineering)Quality (philosophy)Function (biology)Environmental economicsOperations researchEnvironmental scienceBusinessEngineeringEnvironmental engineeringData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This paper presents a Decision Support System (DSS) to assist in the issuing of wastewater discharge and water abstraction rights, including the evaluation of alternative pollution control strategies used to facilitate the analysis and implementation of the instrument. The DSS substantiates its analysis with the use of evolutionary algorithms for the optimization of water demand and wastewater discharge allocation. It intends to maximize the uses and minimize the costs of wastewater treatment measures, according to the limits imposed by the water quality standards. Among the strategies considered for the issuing of permits were the compliance with environmental legislation for wastewater discharge, the equality between water users, the water quality standards set by the water bodies’ classification, and the restrictions imposed by the responsible controlling water agency. The DSS’s results were satisfactory to the strategies analyzed, as they complied with the restrictions and penalties imposed to the objective function. The main objective of the proposed strategies is to evaluate the performance of the DSS in getting the results, as well as to analyze the flexibility of the algorithms when new restrictions and penalties are introduced in the decision making process.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Brasileira de Recursos HídricosSame topicWater resources management and optimizationFrench-language works237,207