MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2175060642 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2014-0487

Local scour around bridge abutments including effects of relative bed coarseness and blockage ratio

2015· article· en· W2175060642 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Peng Wu, Ram Balachandar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlow (mathematics)Geotechnical engineeringBridge (graph theory)GeologyBridge scourRelative densityScale (ratio)GeometryStructural engineeringMathematicsEngineeringPierMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on laboratory scale experiments, the role of relative bed coarseness, approach flow depth, and blockage ratio on local scour around semi-circular bridge abutments are discussed. The results reveal that the approach flow depth and relative bed coarseness have a very strong influence on the scour geometry. With the increase of relative bed coarseness, the scour width and scour depth decrease correspondingly. Larger blockage ratios result in larger scour but the relative effects is the smallest compared to the approach flow depth and relative bed coarseness. An empirical equation is developed based on the experimental results. The study provides additional support for considering relative bed coarseness, flow depth, and blockage ratio in scour prediction formulae.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.012
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

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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207