Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of five experiments was performed in a two-stage compound channel including various roughness conditions and different types of bridge models, namely, single-opening semi-circular arch bridge model (ASOSC), multiple-opening semi-circular arch bridge model (AMOSC), single-opening elliptic arch bridge model (ASOE), and single-opening straight-deck bridge model with and without piers (DECK) including different span widths. The performances of six different methods for computing backwater around bridge waterways were compared using the experimental data carefully taken on many combinations of cases. The results of the energy method, momentum method, WSPRO method, Yarnell's method, USBPR method, and arch bridge method were compared with experimental results. The results showed that energy method was able to simulate more accurately the measured backwater values than the other methods. The backwater differences between the experimental values and computed values by the energy method are generally within –3.2% and 0.8% in terms of flow depth. A simple generalized function for estimating bridge backwater is also proposed.Key words: bridge backwater, hydraulic model testing, flood control, compound channel flow, one-dimensional methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".