MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411493756 · doi:10.2166/wst.2025.079

Optimizing monitoring strategies for urban drainage systems via bilayer iterative clustering

2025· article· en· W4411493756 on OpenAlexaff
Zhiji Yu, Biao Huang, David Z. Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsDynamic time warpingCluster analysisComputer scienceData miningSimilarity (geometry)Software deploymentReal-time computingArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online monitoring is increasingly essential for the effective management and operation of urban sewer systems, yet resource limitations necessitate careful planning of sensor deployment. This study aims to address the impact of time lags on monitoring point selection in urban drainage systems using unsupervised machine learning techniques. A novel method is introduced to determine the optimal number and placement of sensors in manholes, using cluster analysis informed by simulated time-series data. The proposed methodology involves two sequential stages: the first stage clusters time-series data based on morphology similarity using the time-lagged cross-correlation (TLCC) coefficient, which measures the temporal alignment between datasets. The second stage further refines these clusters by considering magnitude similarity, employing dynamic time warping distance to quantify shape-based similarities and improve clustering accuracy. The proposed approach allows for flexible threshold adjustments to accommodate specific engineering requirements, enabling the design of monitoring strategies tailored to a predetermined number of locations. Furthermore, the study explores the impact of rainfall intensity on sensor placement, providing actionable guidance for sewer managers to improve monitoring efficiency and address urban water management challenges.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicWater Systems and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207