MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137736977 · doi:10.1139/l06-008

Optimal lined channel design

2006· article· en· W2137736977 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic flow and structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChannel (broadcasting)EarthworksRADIUSSection (typography)MathematicsOpen-channel flowFlow (mathematics)Constraint (computer-aided design)Mathematical optimizationHydraulic structureCross section (physics)GeometryEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The optimum values of the section variables (side slope, bottom width, flow depth, and radius) for triangular, rectangular, trapezoidal, and circular channels are computed by minimizing the cost of the channel section. Manning's uniform flow formula is treated as the constraint of the optimization model. The cost function is arranged to include the cost of lining, the cost of earthwork, and the increment in the cost of earthwork with depth below the ground surface. The optimum values of section variables are expressed as explicit functions of unit cost terms. Unique values of optimum section variables are obtained for the case of minimum area or minimum wetted perimeter problems. Key words: open channel design, optimization, minimum cost, best hydraulic section.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.159
Teacher spread0.153 · 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