MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285196146 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.c488

Assessment of and Solutions to the Stormwater Management System of Auburn University Campus in Auburn, Alabama

2022· article· en· W4285196146 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alamin Molla, Chandana Mitra, José G. Vasconcelos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAuburn University
KeywordsBioretentionStormwaterSurface runoffEnvironmental scienceSwaleStormwater managementFlooding (psychology)Low-impact developmentEnvironmental engineeringHydrology (agriculture)Water resource managementCivil engineeringEngineeringGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stormwater management needs attention as it causes surface flooding and pollution of nearby waterbodies. Parkerson Mill Creek in Auburn University, which gets polluted through surface runoff, is an example of this. In this study, a Personal Computer Stormwater Management Model (PCSWMM) was used to determine the susceptibility of the existing stormwater network to flooding on the Auburn University campus. Maximum water velocity mapping was used to identify areas associated with 3 categories of velocity (high, medium, and low) to find areas of potential erosion. Among the various sustainable stormwater management initiatives, it was found through a literature review that bioretention cells had the greatest potential to improve stormwater quality by screening pollutants from runoff water as well as minimizing erosion by reducing surface water velocity. Suitability analysis for bioretention cells identified 8 areas on the campus where bioretention cell could be installed for the most effective stormwater management. This study highlights the usability of PCSWMM models and techniques in increasing the efficiency of the stormwater system in any locality.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0010.002
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Management ModelingSame topicUrban Stormwater Management SolutionsFrench-language works237,207