MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285296821 · doi:10.3808/jei.202200477

Design and Application of the Tank Simulation Model (TSM): Assessing the Ability of Rainwater Harvesting to Meet Domestic Water Demand

2022· article· en· W4285296821 on OpenAlexafffund
Corinne J. Schuster‐Wallace, Sarah Dickson‐Anderson, Simon Michael Papalexiou, A. El Ganzouri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Informatics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Canadian institutionsLakeridge HealthUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsRainwater harvestingRoofEnvironmental scienceCivil engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rainwater harvesting (RWH) is a necessary technology to supplement and/or replace insufficient ground and surface water resources for domestic water supplies, especially under changing climate conditions. An accessible and flexible Excel-based RWH simulation tool is developed and applied to investigate the utility of RWH in two regional case studies, under both present conditions and future climate scenarios, through examination of relationships between tank volumes, roof areas, rainfall patterns, and yield. The conversion of complex mathematical formula into a tool with a simple data entry form for infinite combinations of the critical variables enables non-experts to manipulate and optimize designs at the level of RWH implementation. The results clearly show that RWH can augment problematic or insufficient water supplies. Roof area and rainfall distribution have the greatest impact on the ability of a RWH system to meet demand; tank size has a minimal effect, providing a buffer during short dry periods within any given month. Demand met improves in both geographies under future scenarios. Thus, while RWH is insufficient as the sole source of domestic water now and in the future, it is a low-cost supply augmentation solution even in cold climates. RWH solutions are made more accessible through planning tools such as the Tank Simulation Model presented here, which is sufficiently flexible to incorporate climate change scenario planning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental InformaticsSame topicUrban Stormwater Management SolutionsFrench-language works237,207