Assessment of Piano Key Weirs Cost-Effectiveness: a Moroccan Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a water scarcity context, dam reservoirs play a key role in the socio-economic development. Currently, these dams face two major problems: the siltation that reduces their storage capacity, and the risk of submersion during the extreme floods events, which is directly related to the hydraulic insufficiency of spillways. To overcome these potential deficits in terms of storage capacity and flood discharge, at the least cost, the Piano Key Weir "PKW" can constitute an advantageous alternative solution. In this paper, an exhaustive methodology to assess the PKW cost-effectiveness with a Moroccan case study are presented. This study is carried out on 32 large Moroccan dams. Results show that the PKW allows increasing the total capacity of the studied reservoirs by 1150 Mm3 that is about 20% of their current capacity, at a total cost of 930 MMAD. This recovered volume exceeds by far the total volume lost through siltation. The best cost-effectiveness is observed in both hydraulic basins of Loukkos and Sebou and particularly within dams of low specific flow rates and moderate hydraulic heads. A PKW cost-effectiveness analysis for increasing the flood discharge capacity and a PKW comparison to other alternative solutions are presented as well.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".