MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963802026 · doi:10.1080/00221681003726205

An experimental study of mounds formed by dumping coarse sediment in channel flow

2010· article· en· W1963802026 on OpenAlexaff
Faruk Bhuiyan, N. Rajaratnam, David Z. Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydraulic Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFroude numberGeologyDeposition (geology)SedimentHydrology (agriculture)PlumeGeomorphologyBuoyancyFlux (metallurgy)FlumeSediment transportHeap (data structure)Flow (mathematics)Soil scienceMechanicsGeotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceMeteorologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of large sediment mounds formed by continuous release of coarse materials in flowing water is reported. Growths of mound height, longitudinal profile and areal extent were examined for three flow conditions. Longitudinal profiles of depositions during the development phase of the mounds were approximately similar, and they can be expressed by an exponential function if scaled with the maximum height and a width parameter. From observations, it appeared that the mound peak shifted gradually towards upstream and followed the outer part of the sediment plume. The heap growth can be expressed as a function of buoyancy flux due to sediment disposal, flow momentum and densimetric particle Froude number. The deposition height increased with normalized time until reaching close to the water surface. The width and area developed faster with normalized time than the height. The deposition area with coarse sediment was characterized by a downstream tail and fin-like extensions on the sides which differed from observations in previous experiments with fine sand.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.318 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hydraulic ResearchSame topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207