MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2396217594 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2015-0557

Impact of a large cylindrical roughness on tidal bore propagation

2016· article· en· W2396217594 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Swee Chia Yeow, Hubert Chanson, Hang Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic flow and structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Queensland
KeywordsPierGeologySupercritical flowMechanicsGeotechnical engineeringTurbulenceWakeReynolds stressFlow (mathematics)ErosionEngineeringGeomorphologyPhysicsStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A tidal bore is a hydrodynamic shock, surging upstream in some shallow-water bays and estuaries during the flood tide under large tidal range. This study investigates experimentally the propagation of tidal bores over a large cylindrical roughness element, representative of damaged bridge pier foundation. In the initially steady flow, the large cylindrical element generated a wake region, with extents comparable to steady flow literature. During the tidal bore propagation, the presence of the element had negligible effect on the free-surface properties, but a significant impact in terms of the instantaneous velocity and Reynolds stresses. This resulted in longer transient recirculation both upstream and downstream of the element and larger maximum velocity recirculation magnitudes, as well as enhanced turbulent stress levels and potential bed erosion around the large element, within two diameters from the element centre. The results showed the potential development of a large scour hole around the cylindrical element.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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