Hydrologic and soil properties of mature bioretention cells in Ontario, Canada
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
Bioretention systems, which mimic natural hydrology and reduce volume of stormwater runoff, are a preferred solution for meeting water balance objectives, but lack of knowledge about the long-term performance of these systems hinders their wider adoption. This study was a field survey of mature (>3 years and up to 10 years post-construction) bioretention cells across Ontario, Canada. The survey involved visual inspections, determination of soil physical parameters and soil-water interaction parameters, infiltration capacity testing and synthetic drawdown testing. Results indicate that infiltration capacity remains above the recommended minimum of 25 mm/hr, likely due to high content soils and development of soil structure due to biological factors over time. The drawdown times for three sites ranged from 5 minutes to 6 hours, much less than the maximum allowed drawdown time of 24-48 hours. Ksat (saturated hydraulic conductivity) was only moderately negatively correlated with age, and where data existed on KSat at the beginning of operation, KSat improved for six out of nine sites. Soil-water interaction properties more closely resembled loam soils than sandy soils, which may be due to the development of a soil structure over time. We recommend conducting visual inspections regularly over infiltration capacity testing for quick determination of maintenance needs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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.
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