MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159997650 · doi:10.1139/l09-036

Use of a stacked drop manhole for energy dissipation: a case study in Edmonton, Alberta

2009· article· en· W2159997650 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic flow and structures
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)University of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDissipationInflowOutflowDrop (telecommunication)Flow (mathematics)Total energyEnvironmental scienceGeotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringMechanicsEngineeringGeologyMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports on a laboratory investigation into the performance of a novel stacked drop manhole design where two identical rectangular manholes are stacked one beside the other but at different heights so that there is a drop in elevation from one to the other. The focus of the study was to estimate the energy dissipation that occurs in such stacked manholes during diverse inflow conditions. Flow regimes inside the structure were identified and the effectiveness of the design was assessed under variable inflow conditions. Total energy dissipation in the stacked manhole was found to range from about 50% to 90%, and the contribution of each manhole chamber to the overall energy dissipation was assessed. A relationship between water depths in the manhole chambers and the corresponding outflow conditions was established. In addition, an analysis of the flow patterns and flow regimes highlighted the relevant parameters involved in the mechanisms of energy dissipation.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.193 · 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