A Comprehensive Review of Low Impact Development Models for Research, Conceptual, Preliminary and Detailed Design Applications
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review compares and evaluates eleven Low Impact Development (LID) models on the basis of: (i) general model features including the model application, the temporal resolution, the spatial data visualization, the method of placing LID within catchments; (ii) hydrological modelling aspects including: the type of inbuilt LIDs, water balance model, runoff generation and infiltration; and (iii) hydraulic modelling methods with a focus on the flow routing method. Results show that despite the recent updates of existing LID models, several important features are still missing and need improvement. These features include the ability to model: multi-layer subsurface media, tree canopy and processes associated with vegetation, different spatial scales, snowmelt and runoff calculations. This review provides in-depth insight into existing LID models from a hydrological and hydraulic point of view, which will facilitate in selecting the best-suited model. Recommendations on further studies and LID model development are also presented.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it