The Falling Process of Rubble Dumped by a Barge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A reliable prediction model of the deposition mound of rubble can be helpful in designing and calculating the cost of a structure. One of such models devides the gradual deposition of rubble in three stages. This study was focussed on the first stage in the dumping process, in which the deposition of rubble is described by a diffusion process. The cross-section of the resulting mound of rubble in this first stage of the dumping process is shaped like a two-dimensional Gaussian probability density function. The mathematical description of the first stage in the dumping process is called the Single Stone Model (SSM) and is given by: δG = C ⋅ squareroot of h ⋅ Dn50 The SSM assumes that the parameter c can be taken as a constant for a certain type of dumped material. However, from the analysis of prior experimental research, this assumption could be doubted. Therefore, two (new) series of model tests were carried out to verify the assumption in the SSM. For each series the dumped material was broken gravel. From the analysis of the results, it is concluded that for each series of experiments the value of the parameter c is indeed a constant. By means of a Student t-test it is concluded that both values of the parameter c could be taken equal to 0.685. Based on the new model tests it is concluded that the assumption in the SSM is very plausible. The value of the parameter c in the SSM can be considered as a constant for a certain type of dumped material.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".