MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768168739 · doi:10.1515/johh-2017-0023

Bedform characteristics in a gravel-bed river

2017· article· en· W2768168739 on OpenAlexaff
Hossein Afzalimehr, Mohammadreza Maddahi, Jueyi Sui

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBedformGeologyFlow (mathematics)Geotechnical engineeringGeomorphologyGeometryMathematicsSediment transportSediment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Estimation of hydraulic and geometric parameters of a gravel-bed river such as dimensions of bedforms is very difficult task, although they play a fundamental role in river engineering projects. One of the methods to get essential information regarding the bedform characteristics is to find the relations between the flow parameters and bedform dimensions. We conducted this field study in the Babolroud River in northern Iran to investigate the application of double averaged method in unspecific gravel bedforms to evaluate friction factor. Using data collected from several river reaches with total length of 356 m of a gravel-bed river, the relationship between bedform geometry (height and the length of bedforms) and flow parameters including shear velocity, transport stage parameter with friction factor is investigated. Different methods for estimating bedforms dimensions are examined to assess the ability of predicting bedform parameters (length and height) in a gravel-bed river. Using bedform parameters, the contribution of particle and form friction is estimated. Results confirm the application of the double averaged method and existing bedform parameters for unspecific bedforms. There exists a similar trend between aspect ratio and friction factor in gravel bedforms.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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