MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130527400 · doi:10.1029/2006wr005274

Hydrodynamics of a forced riffle pool in a gravel bed river: 2. Scale and structure of coherent turbulent events

2007· article· en· W2130527400 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce MacVicar, A. G. Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbulenceRiffleTurbulence kinetic energyMechanicsFlow (mathematics)ScalingGeologyPhysicsGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the companion article, we present mean velocity and turbulence intensity statistics at a range of discharges in a forced riffle pool unit and show that the distributions of mean velocity and turbulence are characteristic of nonuniform flows. The objectives of this paper are to describe the spatial and temporal variability of the structure of turbulence in the forced riffle pool unit and to examine turbulence generation mechanisms and the links between the scales of macrobed forms and coherent turbulent flow structures. Our results show that while larger‐scale structures develop outside of the thalweg, the scales of coherent turbulent flow structures decrease with velocity and discharge in the forced riffle pool. Flow separation is shown to be an important factor, with full separation occurring in lateral shear zones and intermittent separation near the bed in the pool head. These zones generate new turbulence that disrupts a number of coherent turbulent flow structures that are typical of uniform flows. Coherent turbulent flow structures do not appear to be the source of morphological scaling in the forced riffle pool.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations70
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207