MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6986878923

Report on the supply of water to the City of Hamilton.

2014· article· en· W6986878923 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWater Resources and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater supplyHydrology (agriculture)MileSTREAMSBayRidgeGallon (US)Elevation (ballistics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The distance from which water can be brought in competition with a pumping plan is evidently limited.I did not feel at liberty, there- fore, notwithstanding the liberal scope of my instructions, to extend the examination to the Grand River, or beyond those streams which discharge between Dundas and Burlington Bay Canal, until the nearer sources had been tested and found insufficient.The dividing ridge which separates the waters that flow into the Grand River from those discharging into Lake Ontario is between five and six hundred feet above the latter.This summit, on the line of the Great Western Railway, is in Dumfries, and is 594 feet above Ontario.A supply from the Grand River must be taken from a point on that river at least 600 feet above Ontario ; and this elevation cai> not be obtained nearer than Gait, a distance of upwards of thirty miles by any feasible route.The cost of any form of conduit for this length would range from 5,000 to 10,000 per mile ; and this con- sideration would render any expenditure for surveys unwarrantable -at least until nearer sources had been condemned.An ample supply for 50,000 inhabitants calls for a daily average, throughout the year, of 2,500,000 gallons, -or 50 gallons per diem for each inhabitant.In the winter months the average daily consumption will be much less, and in the summer months much greater, than the above ; and as none of the streams, from the Albion Mills on the south, round to the Waterdown Creek on the north, were, at the time of my visit to them in September, yielding the required supply, it became necessary to test the capabilities of the most promising among them, by a thorough survey, in order to ascertain : 1st.Whether their whole yield during the year would furnish the required supply for the City, together with the other demands for loss by evaporation, leakage, &c, as well as for the mills already erected ; and2ndly.Whether suitable reservoir room, for storing the surplus waters as a reserve during the summer months, could be found at the required elevation, in the valleys of these streams.As a general rule, the discharge from any stream is in direct pro- portion to its drainage area, or, in other words, the greater number of acres it drains the greater quantity of water it will yield.One of the principal objects,, therefore, of the survey was to ascertain the area drained ; and as no existing maps threw any light upon this question, the labour and expense of the examination have necessarily been increased.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.191
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)Same topicWater Resources and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207