MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modeling of Entrainment in Debris Flow Analysis for Dry Granular Material

2017· article· en· W2750386354 on OpenAlexaff
Chao Kang, Dave Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Geomechanics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntrainment (biomusicology)FlumeMechanicsDebris flowDebrisGeologyGeotechnical engineeringFlow (mathematics)ErosionPhysicsGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Debris flows that entrain sediment by undermining channel beds or scouring channel banks can become exceptionally mobile and destructive. Therefore, the calculation of entrainment plays an important role in debris flow runout analysis. An entrainment model is proposed that takes into account surface erosional effects by considering progressive scouring and shear failure on the channel surface. By considering simple geometry and particle configurations, the equations for the progressive scouring are developed. In deriving the equations for the progressive-scouring mode of erosion, two types of motions are considered: rolling motion and sliding motion. Newton’s law of motion is applied to calculate the acceleration, velocity, and displacement of the particles. A probability-density function (PDF) is used in the calculation of the entrainment rate for different configurations of particle contact. Measurements from flume experiments were used for model verification. It was found that the entrainment rate can be calculated using a normal-distribution PDF. The proposed entrainment model has been shown to be effective in calculating debris flow entrainment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.251
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations25
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of GeomechanicsSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207