MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898288535 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.c455

Modeling Urban Sewers with Artificial Fractal Geometries

2018· article· en· W2898288535 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Scott Martin Jeffers, Franco Montalto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport SystemsNational Fish and Wildlife FoundationNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSanitary sewerFractalEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceCivil engineeringHydrology (agriculture)EngineeringMathematicsGeotechnical engineeringEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sewer models are used to simulate complex urban hydrology. However, the development of empirical models can be difficult given the limited availability of sewer plans and the time required to incorporate the system layout. In contrast, fractal geometries can be used to overcome some of these constraints. In this study, two highly impervious residential urban catchments (54 ha and 24 ha) serviced by a combined sewer in East Boston, Massachusetts are modeled using the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM). Two different modeling techniques are compared. The first is an empirical model using the physical characteristics of the network obtained from municipal sewer maps; the second is an abstract conceptual model incorporating fractal scaling laws often used to describe natural river basins. Both modeling approaches were calibrated with 1 month of empirical 5 min interval sewer flow measurements. The models predicted similar total discharge volumes and peak flows over the course of 10 observed rainfall events (0.5 mm to 12.7 mm). Model resolution was tested by simulating the 54 ha catchment as 1, 10, 24 and 173 subcatchments; accurate simulations could be produced for all of the resolutions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.216
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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