MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1618871176 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2014-0035

Validation of a model to predict fish passage mortality in pumping stations

2014· article· en· W1618871176 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
B.P.M. van Esch, I.L.Y. Spierts

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsImpellerRange (aeronautics)Fish <Actinopterygii>Environmental scienceVolumetric flow rateMechanicsCentrifugal pumpVoluteFisheryMarine engineeringStatisticsBiologyMaterials scienceMathematicsPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A total of 1253 live cyprinids and eel were exposed to a centrifugal pump to study fish damage rates in a wide operating range. The observed types of injuries were consistent with a mechanical cause of damage. The measured mortality rates for cyprinids show a fair agreement with a blade strike model based on empirical data by Electric Power Research Institute. Analysis of the experiments with eel led to a new correlation for the blade mortality ratio for this species; lethal injury rate is shown to be zero up to a strike velocity of 8 m·s–1 and increases linearly to 42% for a strike velocity of 15 m·s–1. Use was made of video recordings that provided valuable information on the orientation and distribution of fish approaching the impeller. Results are presented using a new method to visualize fish mortality from a pump in its entire operating range using graphs of pressure head versus flow rate. The theory of pump hydrodynamics is used to derive a method to scale results of fish damage rate, obtained either by a model or by experiments, to different pump sizes, shaft speeds, or fish lengths. This will prove essential for a valid interpretation of pump experiments with fish.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 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

Citations30
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→