Comparison of Water Quantity Management Performance of Two Stormwater Management Technologies in the City of Toronto: A Case Study of the Cupolex® System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluates and compares the hydrologic performance of a new street-level low impact development system called Cupolex®, an arcade of concrete-covered plastic domes stormwater detention system, to permeable interlocking concrete pavers (PICP) along a retrofitted laneway in Toronto, Canada. A monitoring protocol and stormwater modelling guideline was developed for the research. The results revealed a % runoff depth and peak runoff rate reductions between 90.6% to 100%, and 94% to 100% respectively for Cupolex®. The results for PICP revealed a % runoff depth and peak runoff rate reductions between 35% to 67%, and 4% to 85% respectively. The performance for PICP may be attributed to the low permeability soil conditions and design features. Overall, Cupolex® performed significantly better than PICP under the events observed and provides a baseline understanding of its performance for future implementation. Further research should focus on long-term monitoring and further development of stormwater management models for performance prediction under different design conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".