MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755155832 · doi:10.2166/hydro.2017.149

Scour depth model for grade-control structures

2017· article· en· W2755155832 on OpenAlexafffund
Ahmed M. A. Sattar, Karol Plesiński, Artur Radecki‐Pawlik, Bahram Gharabaghi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydroinformatics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniwersytet Rolniczy im. Hugona Kołłątaja w Krakowie
KeywordsGene expression programmingWeirDownstream (manufacturing)Parametric statisticsHydrology (agriculture)STREAMSFlow (mathematics)Environmental scienceGeotechnical engineeringGeologyComputer scienceEngineeringMathematicsGeographyStatisticsArtificial intelligenceCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Grade-control structures (GCS) are commonly used to protect fish habitat by preventing excessive river-bed degradation in mountain streams. However, flow over the GCS can cause localized scour immediately downstream of the weir. This paper aims to develop more accurate models for prediction of the maximum scour depth downstream of GCS, using a more extensive dataset and evolutionary gene expression programming (GEP). Three GEP models are developed relating maximum scour depth and various control variables. The developed models had the lowest error compared to available models. A parametric analysis is performed for further verification of the developed GEP model. The results indicate that the proposed relations are simple and can more accurately predict the scour depth downstream GCS.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 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

Citations21
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HydroinformaticsSame topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207