MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2266211163 · doi:10.14288/1.0066998

Two prototype fluvial suspended sediment samplers evaluated in an instream flume

2009· article· en· W2266211163 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bruce Harrison Roddan

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlumeFluvialHydrology (agriculture)SedimentEnvironmental scienceGeologyGeomorphologyGeotechnical engineeringFlow (mathematics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fluvial suspended sediment (FSS) is a measured physical component of hydrologic and environmental watershed studies. A variety of tools and strategies are employed to collect a FSS sample that is representative of the source water FSS. The discrete point-in-time automatic fixed speed pump sampler (DPS) is a commonly used tool in FSS studies. During May-October 2006, two prototype FSS samplers, a time integrated passive sampler (TIPS) and a continuous flow proportional variable speed pump sampler (CPS), were evaluated using an instream flume and a DPS sampler, placed in a small, low energy, second order stream in the Southern Interior of British Columbia, Canada. The time integrated passive sampler consisted of a passive instream sampler, and collected FSS continuously over a 24-hour period from a point in the stream cross-section. The CPS consisted of a combined instream suction pipe, pressure differentially controlled variable speed peristaltic pump, removable inclined pipe expansion, and filter bed system. The CPS pumped and filtered water for FSS continuously over a 24-hour period from a point in the stream cross-section. The instream flume consisted of an immersed 1 m diameter by 5 m long half pipe section on adjustable legs. Results indicated that all three samplers were correlated in the assessment of FSS silt/clay (mineral particle size fractions < 53 μm), sand (mineral particle size fractions > 53 μm), and organic matter based on weight, concentration, and percent proportions. Regression results demonstrated that there was disagreement between the DPS and the other two samplers for the assessment of organic fractions. The CPS- and TIPS-measured blend of percent organic and percent mineral fractions were in agreement, particularly if the TIPS measured percent sand was less than 35%. The TIPS collected FSS variables were most responsive to changes in flume flow velocity (log-log relationship), particularly the measurement of FSS total weight. The TIPS weight variables were predictors of flume FSS load values when calibrated to CPS or DPS load values. The study of the TIPS operational characteristics revealed that the inlet velocity was less than the ambient flume velocity of 400 mm ⁻¹ by a factor of 3.9. The proportion of inlet FSS retained in the TIPS body was determined by studying the ratio of expelled to retained FSS proportions (E:R). The E:R ratio was stable at 1:1 for flume velocities between 300 mm ⁻¹ and 400 mm s⁻¹. The E:R ratio varied predictably (linearly) according to the flume velocity, but less predictably according to changing proportions of organic matter, mineral particle size < 53 μm, and mineral particle size> 53 μm. The TIPS and CPS were capable of collecting enough FSS to assess a mineral particle size < 53 μm and> 53 μm. DPS assessment was restricted by the collected sample size to the assessment of organic matter and total mineral fractions only. The DPS was capable of partitioning the 24-hour hydrograph into 2-hour segments, whereas the CPS and TIPS collected a time integrated composite sample over the 24-hour period. The DPS pump speed was fixed, whereas the CPS pump speed was variable, according to the pressure differential readings on a venturi at the TIPS sampler outlet that responded to flume flow velocity. The instream flume provided a stable 24-hour sediment supply, linearized flow and isolated the FSS supply from streambed sediments. The flume was also a convenient, adjustable working platform above the watercourse. The CPS and TIPS prototypes represent successful initial steps toward designing an alternative sampling device to the automatic pump sampler.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes→French-language works237,207→