Building capacity for rainwater harvesting in Ontario: rainwater quality and performance of RWH systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To promote the practice of rainwater harvesting (RWH) in Ontario, two issues surrounding urban rainwater use were examined: the performance aspects of RWH systems, and rainwater quality. This study found RWH to be a practical solution for augmenting municipal water supplies; decreasing the annual mains water use of a five person water-conserving household by 30% (65 m 3) when used for toilet flushing, laundry and outdoor use. Monitoring of RWH systems during periods of cold weather indicates that these systems can operate during winter conditions, provided that the rainwater cistern is buried below the frost penetration depth, or placed in a temperature controlled environment. A significant variation in rainwater quality was observed between sites, over time, and with treatment. The absence of heavy metals, PAHs, ' Legionella,' or 'Campylobacter' in any of the rainwater samples indicates that given post-cistern treatment, rainwater end-uses could be expanded beyond those permitted by the Ontario Building Code.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".