MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019400225 · doi:10.1080/00221686.2011.614518

Regions of bars, meandering and braiding in da Silva and Yalin's plan

2011· article· en· W2019400225 on OpenAlexafffund
Habib Ahmari, Ana Maria Ferreira da Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydraulic Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsManitoba HydroQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversità degli Studi di Padova
KeywordsPlan (archaeology)GeologyBoundary (topology)Field (mathematics)FluvialMeander (mathematics)GeometryGeomorphologyMathematicsPaleontologyMathematical analysisPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The existence region plan of alternate bars, multiple bars, meandering and braiding, introduced by da Silva in 1991 and presented in its most recent form by Yalin and da Silva in the 2001 IAHR monograph Fluvial Processes, is updated and revised. For this purpose, the plan is extended by adding available laboratory and field data from the recent literature, as well as earlier data that only recently became available to the authors. Data from two series of laboratory runs conducted by the authors are also included. These were conducted to fill in a gap in the existing data, pertinent to the definition of the existence region of alternate bars. This work led to a revision to the location of the boundary lines of the existence regions of both alternate bars and meanders. An attempt was also made to reveal the existence regions of different types of multiple bars.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.322
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

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

Citations31
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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