MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967292474 · doi:10.1139/l08-094

Assessment of spillway modeling using computational fluid dynamics

2008· article· en· W1967292474 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic flow and structures
Canadian institutionsManitoba Hydro
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaManitoba Hydro
KeywordsComputational fluid dynamicsSpillwayRange (aeronautics)Flow (mathematics)Fluid dynamicsEngineeringHydroelectricityReliability (semiconductor)Marine engineeringPhysical modellingComputer scienceGeotechnical engineeringMechanicsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Throughout the design and planning period for future hydroelectric generating stations, hydraulic engineers are increasingly integrating computational fluid dynamics (CFD) into the process. As a result, hydraulic engineers are interested in the reliability of CFD software to provide accurate flow data for a wide range of structures, including a variety of different spillways. In the literature, CFD results have generally been in agreement with physical model experimental data. Despite past success, there has not been a comprehensive assessment that looks at the ability of CFD to model a range of different spillway configurations, including flows with various gate openings. In this article, Flow-3D is used to model the discharge over ogee-crested spillways. The numerical model results are compared with physical model studies for three case study evaluations. The comparison indicates that the accuracy of Flow-3D is related to the parameter P/H d .

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.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.192 · 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