The Effectiveness of Exfiltration Technology to Support Sponge City Objectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban stormwater management is essential to improve the management of floodwaters in municipalities in urban areas. However, relying on sponge city options for site planning in an attempt to decrease the impacts of flooding is challenging due to the magnitude of flooding in urban China. The merits of exfiltration technology being used in Canada are described as having significant potential; this technology encourages passage from the stormwater pipe down to a second, lower pipe, to facilitate exfiltration to the vadose zone and, ultimately, to replenish groundwater. For example, for a small urban catchment, stormwater runoff from a 2-h long, 5-yearly storm, is demonstrated as being able to exfiltrate approximately 53% of the stormwater. Overall, the potential exists to exfiltrate stormwater from the lower pipe and it is estimated that 71% of the water entering the storm sewer is exfiltrated to the vadose zone, for a small catchment. The exfiltration pipe technology increases groundwater recharge which provides an opportunity to help manage subsidence in China. However, attention must be paid to the quality of the infiltrating water since, as true for any sponge city initiative, poor quality infiltrating water may deteriorate the quality of the groundwater.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".