The city of Montreal's overflow control program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Quebec provincial government (Minist\303\250re de l\342\200\231Environnement du Qu\303\251bec) has defined environmental discharge objectives (EDO) to protect receiving water bodies and their use against CSOs, SSOs and storm water pollution. The objectives have been established on the basis of direct and indirect water uses, which are to be protected or rehabilitated. They have been defined in terms of maximum overflow frequencies per area and based on the uses of the receiving water bodies. The City of Montreal is committed to the implementation of a program to control the overflows from the island\342\200\231s combined sewers in order to comply with the objectives and to rehabilitate the St. Lawrence River and of the Rivi\303\250re des Prairies. Six solution scenarios in as many intervention programs are presented and evaluated, from the simplest to the more complex. This document presents the environmental objectives with regard to discharge in both media and based on the long-term, as well as the intervention scenarios to reach these goals. The assessment is based on environmental and financial criteria, as well as implementation and operation criteria.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.001 |
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".