Evaluation of Soil Saver Walls on Aquatic Organism Passage Through Box Culverts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reinforced concrete box culverts are designed to provide hydraulic conveyance at peak stream discharge in a cost-effective manner; however, these structures can promote headcutting. Many state departments of transportation construct soil saver walls or similar structures on the upstream of box culverts to prevent headcutting. These walls act as a drop inlet and may hinder free movement of aquatic organisms. The potential impact on aquatic organism passage has resulted in regulatory pressure to develop alternatives or modifications to the traditional soil saver wall design. This article contains the results of an analysis of the potential impact of box culverts with solid soil saver walls on aquatic organism passage. The results of a survey of thirty states and fifteen field sites on the current state-of-practice for box culverts, and flume tests using model box culverts with a solid soil saver wall and with modified design to promote aquatic passage are presented. Modifications to the soil saver wall design are recommended based on the results of the survey of states, field surveys, and flume testing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".