MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2195010980 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2015-0246

Effect of pool confinement on pressures around a block impacted by plunging aerated jets

2015· article· en· W2195010980 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rafael Duarte, Anton Schleiss, António N. Pinheiro

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic flow and structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAir entrainmentEntrainment (biomusicology)AerationJet (fluid)GeologyBlock (permutation group theory)Hydraulic jumpMechanicsErosionGeotechnical engineeringFlow (mathematics)GeomorphologyGeometryChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The erosion caused by jets issued from hydraulic structures progressively develops a confined scour-hole on the riverbed. A realistic scour assessment must consider both the influence of the air entrained when the jet plunges into the pool and the flow patterns induced by bottom geometry. This experimental study systematically analyzes the combined influence of jet aeration and pool confinement on the dynamic pressures affecting the water–rock interface and inside 3D fissures around a block. The results show that confinement reduces mean pressures and pressure fluctuations when the pool is relatively deep, but almost no influence is found when the pool is shallow, while air entrainment has an opposite effect. Three mechanisms are identified, two of them depend on the pool depth. Furthermore, when a block is mobile, pressures are attenuated inside the surrounding joints. The consequent block vibrations and the presence of air reduce pressure waves celerity inside the fissures.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicHydraulic flow and structuresFrench-language works237,207