MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098783263 · doi:10.1002/rra.2851

At‐A‐Station Hydraulic Geometry Simulator

2014· article· en· W2098783263 on OpenAlex
Daniel McParland, Brett Eaton, Jordan S. Rosenfeld

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueRiver Research and Applications · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsMinistry of EnvironmentUniversity of British Columbia
FundersPacific Institute for Climate Solutions
KeywordsRiparian zoneChannel (broadcasting)Environmental scienceRange (aeronautics)Flow (mathematics)HydraulicsHabitatHydrology (agriculture)Vegetation (pathology)Computer scienceGeologyEcologyGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Presented in this paper is a hydraulic model that combines a rational regime theory with an at‐a‐station hydraulic geometry simulator (ASHGS) to predict reach‐averaged hydraulic conditions for flows up to but not exceeding the bankfull stage. The hydraulic conditions determined by ASHGS can be paired with an empirical joint frequency distribution equation and applicable habitat suitability indices to generate weighted usable area (WUA) as a function of flow. ASHGS was tested against a 2‐dimensional hydrodynamic model (River2D) of a mid‐size channel in the Interior Region of British Columbia. By linking ASHGS to a regime model, it becomes possible to evaluate the direction and magnitude of habitat changes associated with a wide range of environmental changes. Our regime model considers flow regime, sediment supply, and riparian vegetation: these governing variables can be used to simulate responses to forest fire, flow regulation and changes in climate and land use. Practitioners can examine ‘what‐if’ scenarios that otherwise would be too expensive and time consuming to fully explore. The model boundaries of commonly used data‐intensive hydraulic habitat models (e.g. PHABSIM) are not easily adjusted and such models are not designed to estimate future morphological and hydraulic habitat conditions in rivers the undergo significant channel restructuring. The proposed model has the potential to become an accepted flow assessment tool amongst practitioners due to modest data requirements, user‐friendliness, and large spatial applicability; it can be used to conduct preliminary assessments of channel altering projects and determine if in‐depth habitat assessments are justified.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.285 · 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