Modelling and analyzing flow diversion in branching channels with symmetric geometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper aims at the investigation and analysis of numerical and laboratory modelling of flow in branched channels with symmetrical geometry and varying hydraulic conditions. Details of velocity and water‐level profiles in branching locations are discussed. In some low‐slop regions like plains, rivers may be branching; or in alluvial plains where the slop is low, meanders may appear. On the other hand, in the mountainous and semi‐mountainous areas with relatively steep slops, arterial rivers can be formed. Therefore, it is important to learn the behaviour of rivers in branching location and to simulate water flow in branching part of rivers. Details of two‐dimensional numerical model in a main channel and secondary downstream branches are explained and results are analysed and compared against experimental data. With respect to the numerical simulation, velocity and depth in different sections of laboratory model are calculated and the corresponding profiles are developed. The water‐level profiles are calculated and drawn using both the numerical and experimental models. Some long narrow eddies are predicted along internal bank of junction. The comparison of numerical and experimental models proves reasonable results for this research. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".