Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water quality control bioretention cells are usually sized so that they are large enough to provide storage of runoff generated from its catchment resulting from the water quality control design storm of the location of interest. A bioretention cell can have three parts where runoff may be temporarily stored: (1) the depressed surface ponding area, (2) the growing media layer, and (3) the storage layer. In this study, the detailed sizing calculation methods adopted by 21 jurisdictions in the US and Canada were reviewed and compared. It was found that for satisfying the required storage volume to store runoff generated from the water quality control design storm, some jurisdictions only allow the storage provided by the surface ponding area to be counted, whereas other jurisdictions allow the sum of the storages provided by two of the three or all of the three parts to be counted. These differences can result in significant differences in the sizes and performances of bioretention cells. By examining and analyzing the detailed hydrologic processes involved in the operation of bioretention cells, it was demonstrated in this study that many of the adopted sizing calculation methods are flawed or inappropriate. Presented here are a summary of the findings and the recommended sizing calculation method. The possible degrees of over- or underdesigns resulting from some of the incorrect sizing calculation methods are also estimated.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".