MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Discharge Characteristics of Weirs of Finite Crest Length with Upstream and Downstream Ramps

2013· article· en· W1996638620 on OpenAlexaff
Amir H. Azimi, N. Rajaratnam, David Z. Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic flow and structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeirDischarge coefficientCrestUpstream (networking)Downstream (manufacturing)Upstream and downstream (DNA)LeveeFlow (mathematics)GeologyGeotechnical engineeringTransverse planeMechanicsHydrology (agriculture)EngineeringStructural engineeringPhysicsGeographyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers flow measurement in open channels with transverse weirs of finite crest length with sloping crests and upstream or downstream ramps—or both—for free flows. Using the broad-crested weir equation with a discharge coefficient as the basis and following the earlier studies of broad-crested weirs, robust correlations have been developed for the discharge coefficient by using the experimental results available in the literature. Effects of upstream and downstream ramps were studied by introducing the upstream and the downstream length scales, respectively. The proposed correlations of embankment weirs were compared with the head-discharge formulations of embankment weirs in the literature. Triangular (hump) weirs with either upstream or downstream ramps (or both) have also been considered. It was found that in triangular (hump) weirs, the discharge coefficient increases when the downstream slope increases, but it decreases when the upstream slope increases.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.154
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Citations53
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Irrigation and Drainage EngineeringSame topicHydraulic flow and structuresFrench-language works237,207