MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100161823 · doi:10.1139/l08-036

Experimental and theoretical analyses of two-dimensional flows upstream of broad-crested weirs

2008· article· en· W2100161823 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Salih Kırkgöz, M. Sami Aköz, Ahmet Alper Öner

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic flow and structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbulenceVolume of fluid methodComputational fluid dynamicsMechanicsParticle image velocimetryFlow (mathematics)K-epsilon turbulence modelFree surfaceUpstream (networking)Fluid dynamicsVelocimetryPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using the particle image velocimetry (PIV) technique, the laboratory experiments are conducted to measure the velocity fields of two-dimensional turbulent free surface flows upstream of rectangular and triangular broad-crested weirs. The experimental flow cases are analyzed theoretically by a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling in which the finite element method is used to solve the governing equations. In the CFD simulation, the volume of fluid (VOF) method is used to compute the free surfaces of the flows. Using the standard k–ε and standard k–ω turbulence models, the numerical results for the velocity fields and flow profiles are compared with the experimental results for validation purposes. The computed results using k–ω turbulence model on compressed mesh systems are found in good agreement with measured data. The flow cases are also analyzed theoretically using the potential flow (PF) approach, and the numerical results for the velocity fields are compared with measurements.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations32
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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