MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326091122 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2013-0374

Experimental study of flood diversion in the middle and lower Han River, China

2014· article· en· W2326091122 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Junhong Zhang, Minghui Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater diversionFlumeDikeFlood mythDebris flowFlood controlHydrology (agriculture)Geotechnical engineeringErosionHead (geology)GeologyEnvironmental scienceFlow (mathematics)DebrisGeomorphologyGeographyWater resource managementMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

River flood control plays an important and essential role to prevent the loss of life and property along the riverbank. This study designed a bend flume experiment to investigate the effects of flood diversion in the middle and lower of Han River using the method of passive control. The diversion breach evolution and the relations between the diversion flow through the breach and the influencing factors were analyzed. Four stages of the entire flood diversion process of non-cohesive dikes, namely overtopping, groove formation, breach stretching and stability stages, were proposed. The research results indicated that the particle size had an obvious effect on the erosion rate during the initial flood diversion, and little influence on the maximum diversion discharge. In addition, the water head between the inside and outside of river had a significant effect on the initial flow diversion. The greater the water head, the greater the diversion discharge that occurs.

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)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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