Data Reporting Guidelines for Certification of Manufactured Stormwater BMPs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increasing need for the independent field testing of proprietary devices comes the importance of consistent data reporting guidelines to be used when reporting to regulatory agencies. The need for standardized reporting is underscored by the tremendous impact the range of factors can have upon testing results. These factors include the testing environment, experimental design, testing methodologies, statistical analysis, and data presentation. The need for the consistency is underscored by the complex influence these factors have upon performance results. A clear and consistent data reporting approach can ensure that these biases are minimized, well understood, and that representative field testing can be effectively evaluated by the regulatory agency. Data Reporting guidelines presented here were developed as part of the ASCE/EWRI Committee on Guidelines for Certification of Manufactured Stormwater BMPs.
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 | 0.146 | 0.251 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.026 |
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".