MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W976971633 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.r220-24

The Use of GIS to Determine a Strategy for the Removal of Urban Litter Upper Lotus and Lower Salt River Catchments, Cape Town

2004· article· en· W976971633 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chris Wise, Neil Armitage

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWater Research Commission
KeywordsCapeLotusLitterEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Salt (chemistry)GeographyArchaeologyGeologyWaste managementEngineeringEcologyChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban litter pollution is a persistent problem in rivers, canals and drainage pipelines throughout South Africa.Part of an integrated approach to achieve a reduction oflitterpollution in the storm water systems involves the development of optimized strategies for the removal of litter from the pipelines and canals.This can only be achieved by developing a clearer understanding of the volume, source and distribution of litter within South African stormwater systems.This chapter presents a study in which a litter generation model was developed to estimate the source and quantities of litter in the upper reaches of the Lotus River and lower reaches of the Salt River catchments.Using GIS modeling techniques, the litter generation model integrated land-use data sets with litter wash-off rates for various land-use types to determine the quantity of litter generated from discrete sub-catchments within the study area.This model was then used as an aid in selecting the most appropriate litter removal devices in optimal locations within the study area to achieve the greatest litter removal at the lowest cost.A practical phased implementation program was thus developed for the City of Cape Town that could potentially remove 65% of the litter from the rivers and canals in the study area.Wise, C. and N. Armitage.2004."The Use of GIS to Determine a Strategy for the Removal of Urban Litter Upper Lotus and Lower Salt River Catchments, Cape Town."Journal of Water Management Modeling R220-24.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Management ModelingSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207