MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Quantifying Rainfall-Derived Inflow from Private Foundation Drains in Sanitary Sewers: Case Study in London, Ontario, Canada

2019· article· en· W2953845057 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Albert Z. Jiang, Edward A. McBean, Andrew Binns, Bahram Gharabaghi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrologic Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersInstitute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction
KeywordsInflowSanitary sewerHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceFoundation (evidence)Infiltration (HVAC)SubdivisionBootstrapping (finance)Environmental engineeringCivil engineeringGeotechnical engineeringGeographyMathematicsEngineeringMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rainfall-derived infiltration and inflow (RDII) is a major issue causing surcharge flows in many municipal sanitary sewer systems. This paper demonstrates a statistical method for characterizing the rainfall-derived inflow (RDI) originating from residential foundation drains (also referred to as weeping tiles), as well as the importance of having site-specific data. The results differentiating the contribution of RDI from residential weeping tiles (WT) to total RDII are demonstrated for a case study site in a residential subdivision in London, Ontario, Canada. This research used statistical linear regression analyses with bootstrapping methods to quantify the RDI and its flow duration. It was found that the RDI from WT contributed up to 85% of the total RDII in the sanitary sewer. By disconnecting WT at this site, the RDI generated as a result of rainfall events was reduced by a minimum of 78% in volume and 32% in flow duration. Thus, this paper presents a novel method to quantify RDI and its duration from statistical perspectives, which provides better supporting evidence and guidance for RDI projects.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hydrologic EngineeringSame topicUrban Stormwater Management SolutionsFrench-language works237,207