Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introducing large woody debris into streams is a common practice in restoration projects. Beyond the complexity of flow patterns and sediment movements in streams where woody debris are found or placed, it seems that our understanding of the basic hydraulics of large roughness elements in small channels remains limited. Underestimating the drag force affecting large roughness elements can compromise the success of stream restoration projects. Results from a simple experimental setting confirm that drag force estimates based on approaches developed for small cylinders are not valid when applied to large cylinders. Indeed, the classic drag force equation that uses an empirical drag coefficient is found to significantly underestimate measured drag forces, even when corrected for the ‘blockage ratio’. In contrast, application of specific momentum can yield good estimates of the drag force. A dimensionless depth is defined in a 1D context as a function of the flow depth, critical flow depth and cylinder diameter. A cylinder is considered to be ‘large’ when this dimensionless depth is smaller than 2. In this instance, a relationship is established to estimate the upstream flow depth and the drag force acting on the cylinder. This research bridges the small roughness element theory widely recognized in hydraulic engineering with the theory applicable to large, flow controlling structures such as weirs. From a practical perspective, this research can be used to assist in the design of engineered large woody debris structures. Copyright © 2015 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".