MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890355735 · doi:10.1051/e3sconf/20184002004

Hydrodynamic Simulation of an Irregularly Meandering Gravel-Bed River: Comparison of MIKE 21 FM and Delft3D Flow models

2018· article· en· W2890355735 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueE3S Web of Conferences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythFlow (mathematics)Hydrology (agriculture)GeologyChannel (broadcasting)Flooding (psychology)Environmental scienceLarge eddy simulationGeomorphologyGeotechnical engineeringMeteorologyTurbulenceGeographyMechanicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims at hydrodynamic modelling of Bow River, which passes through the City of Calgary, Canada. Bow River has a mobile gravel bed. Erosion and deposition processes were exacerbated by a catastrophic flood in 2013. Channel banks were eroded at various locations, and large gravel bars formed, which could lead to water level changes and accordingly more flooding. This study investigates the performance of Delft3D-Flow and MIKE 21 FM to simulate the hydrodynamics of the river during the 2013 flood. MIKE 21FM employs unstructured triangular mesh while Delft3D-Flow model uses curvilinear structured grids. Performance of each model was evaluated by the available historical water levels. The results of this study demonstrated that, with approximately the same averaged grid resolution, MIKE 21 FM resulted in more accurate results with a higher computational cost compared to the Delft3DFlow model. It was shown that Delft3D-Flow model may require higher grid cell resolution to result in comparably same depth-averaged velocities throughout the study area. However, considering the balance between the computational cost and the accuracy of the results, both models were capable to adequately replicate the hydrodynamics of the river during the 2013 flood. Results of statistical KS and ANOVA test analysis showed that the model predictions were sensitive to the horizontal eddy viscosity and the Manning roughness. This confirms the necessity of an appropriate calibration of the generated numerical models. The findings of this study shed light on the Bow River flood modelling, which can guide flood management.

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.

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 score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.239 · 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