MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1757351890 · doi:10.1139/l2012-113

Hydraulic geometry and resistance to flow in headwater streams in the Northwest Territories, Canada

2012· article· en· W1757351890 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Abul B. M. Baki, David Z. Zhu, Gregory Courtice

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSTREAMSExponentPower functionGeometryFlow (mathematics)Flow velocityMathematicsHydrology (agriculture)Hydraulic resistanceGeologyGeotechnical engineeringMechanicsPhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydraulic geometry and resistance to flow of headwater streams in the Northwest Territories of Canada are presented in this paper. Power functions describe at-a-station hydraulic geometry relationships very well, where positive exponents of width, depth, and velocity have mean values of 0.14, 0.17, and 0.65, respectively. These values were found to be lower, much lower, and higher than corresponding mean values of width, depth, and velocity exponents found in the literature. The mean velocity exponent is greater than mean width and depth exponents combined, demonstrating the dominant role of velocity in accommodating varying discharge in all streams evaluated in this study. Darcy–Weisbach resistance factor (f) and Manning’s n individually vary over three orders of magnitude, 1.0–267 and 0.085–1.37, respectively. Despite large ranges, hydraulic relations are described effectively through power equations and Keulegan function curves fitted for each section.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.160
Teacher spread0.156 · 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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207