MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057712820 · doi:10.1115/ipc2004-0239

A Geomorphic Approach to the Design of Pipeline Crossings of Mountain Streams

2004· article· en· W2057712820 on OpenAlexaff
Matthias Jakob, Michael J. Porter, K. Wayne Savigny, Eugene K. Yaremko

Bibliographic record

Venue2004 International Pipeline Conference, Volumes 1, 2, and 3 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsBGC Engineering (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAggradationSTREAMSFluvialFlood mythHazardous wastePipeline (software)GeologyHydrology (agriculture)Process (computing)Debris flowReturn periodEnvironmental scienceDebrisComputer scienceGeomorphologyGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several hydrological methods are available to determine flood discharge and scour of streams at pipeline crossings. These methods are appropriate for streams dominated by purely hydrological processes, but fail where other, more hazardous processes occur within the design recurrence interval. Several investigations have shown that scour, impact and aggradation associated with debris flows, outburst floods or related phenomena may fundamentally change the parameters needed for proper pipeline crossing design. Depending on the process type, the peak discharge of the hazardous process can exceed that of the design flood (typically 50 to 200 year return period) by a factor of 2 to 50. Similarly, scour or aggradation by a non-fluvial process can exceed the hydrologically-derived estimates by several factors. It is therefore recommended that a geomorphic approach be taken in recognizing and quantifying the potential for non-fluvial processes and that the findings be integrated in the design of pipeline crossings.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2004 International Pipeline Conference, Volumes 1, 2, and 3Same topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207