MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083457831 · doi:10.1139/l06-031

An experimental study of flow into orifices and grating inlets on streets

2006· article· en· W2083457831 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Zahiraniza Mustaffa, N. Rajaratnam, David Z. Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic flow and structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFroude numberInletDischarge coefficientBody orificeFlow (mathematics)HydraulicsMechanicsInflowStrouhal numberFlow coefficientOrifice plateSupercritical flowGeotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceGeologyReynolds numberPhysicsEngineeringNozzleGeomorphologyTurbulenceThermodynamicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Findings are described from a laboratory-scale model of flow through orifices on manhole covers and through three types of grating inlets used by the City of Edmonton. The results demonstrated that the flow through these orifices can be calculated using an orifice equation with a coefficient of discharge equal to 0.616 in a ponding situation but decreasing with an increase in the Froude number of the flow. The roughness of the manhole cover was found to slow down this reduction. For the three gratings, the inflow can be calculated with an orifice type of equation when the gratings are submerged. The discharge coefficient in this equation is approximately constant for two of the gratings and decreases somewhat with an increase in the Froude number of the flow for the third grating if the specific energy of the approaching flow is used as the length scale.Key words: street inlet, street hydraulics, grating inlet, orifice flows.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 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

Citations18
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicHydraulic flow and structuresFrench-language works237,207