MANAGEMENT LINES AND LAND USES FOR THE NILE RIVER BETWEEN ASSIUT AND DELTA BARRAGES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, the Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation has developed the concept of “training lines ” since the ministry has the responsibility to control all development within the area between these lines. These lines are two parallel curvilinear lines set about 700m apart to pass 11,000 m 3 /s peak discharges. Since the 1950’s many things have happened to the river including channel shifting, however the most important was the construction of the High Aswan Dam (HAD) in the 1960’s that has been completely controlled the downstream flooding. The peak annual release of about 3000 m 3 /s can now regarded as bankfull discharge along the length of the river. Therefore, it was deemed necessary to bring up to date the old concept of training lines. The Nile Research Institute together with a Canadian panel of expertise achieved this task in 1992 by replacing the old training lines by morphological lines called the Management Lines which consists of Terrace Lines, Channel Lines and Flood Lines. The new concept takes into account the needs of the river itself, river planners and managers as well as the river users. This paper outlines the criteria used to delimitate the new concept. The new lines are computed and plotted in about 300 km reach between Assiut barrage and Delta barrage. Mathematical model is used to compute the flood line. The paper recommended that in order to finalize these lines, they should be verified and the situation in the field should be defined. Also national commission should be asserted to monitor and control these lines.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".