MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluating Turbulent Flow in Large Rockfill

2011· article· en· W2088400519 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sumi Siddiqua, James Blatz, N. C. Privat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydraulic Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermeameterGeotechnical engineeringLaminar flowTurbulenceTortuosityFlow (mathematics)Hydraulic conductivityGeologyPorosityEngineeringMechanicsSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a laboratory testing program developed to assess the hydraulic properties of coarse rockfill by using a custom-built large-scale permeameter. Tests were performed by using samples 1.5 m in length and 0.7 m3 in volume. Knowing the hydraulic characteristics of coarse rockfill is important for assessing the safety of the structures under anticipated flow conditions in flow-through rockfill embankments. Flow in rockfill structures often departs from the laminar flow regime at typical operating flow conditions because of the characteristics of the rockfill materials. These characteristics include porosity, particle shape, particle size, roughness, and the tortuosity of the voids within the structure, which result in high velocities in large interconnected void spaces. For this reason, flow-through rockfill structures cannot be predicted by using Darcy’s law. The design and construction of a large-scale permeameter built at the University of Manitoba Hydraulic Research and Testing Facility is presented in detail. The experimental program, which used the large-scale permeameter, studied the nonlinear hydraulic characteristics of coarse rockfill materials for the coefficient in the power-law relationship between hydraulic gradient and bulk velocity. The results demonstrate that the large-scale permeameter successfully characterized the flow-through conditions of a variety of rockfill sizes and gradations under typical flow conditions. Results also allowed the determination of the coefficients to design flow-through rockfill dams for local rockfills.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hydraulic EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207