MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1931401659 · doi:10.1139/l08-088

Analytical estimation of effective discharge for small southern Ontario streams

2008· article· en· W1931401659 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Abdul Quader, Yiping Guo, Jery R. Stedinger

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityIntertek (Canada)
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLog-normal distributionSTREAMSExponential functionStreamflowPower functionExponentDistribution fittingExponential distributionChannel (broadcasting)Gamma distributionDistribution (mathematics)StatisticsFunction (biology)Open-channel flowMathematicsHydrology (agriculture)Flow (mathematics)GeologyMathematical analysisGeometryComputer scienceGeotechnical engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effective discharge (Q e ) of a channel reach may be analytically determined by fitting the flow–duration relationship with a distribution model and representing the bed-material transport with a power function. Analysis of streamflow data from small southern Ontario streams showed that the commonly used lognormal distribution does not provide a good fit to many streamflow records. A mixed exponential distribution model is proposed and a formula for computing the resulting Q e is derived. The results from this new Q e formula were compared with those obtained using other analytical distribution functions and those from empirical sediment transport effectiveness curves. These comparisons indicate that the new analytical solution provides on average the most accurate estimates of Q e when the exponent β of the power function describing sediment transport at the channel reach is not more than 2; when β > 2, a gamma distribution provides the most accurate estimates followed closely by the mixed exponential distribution.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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