MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891834028 · doi:10.1051/e3sconf/20184003021

Scouring due to submerged sills

2018· article· en· W2891834028 on OpenAlexafffund
Ashley Dudill, Jose A. Vasquez, D. G. McLean

Bibliographic record

VenueE3S Web of Conferences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMitacs
KeywordsSillRiprapFlumeGeologyFlow (mathematics)Channel (broadcasting)Geotechnical engineeringOpen-channel flowSedimentRange (aeronautics)Hydrology (agriculture)MechanicsEngineeringGeomorphologyPetrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the construction of infrastructure in and around a river channel modifies the flow and sediment transport characteristics, prediction of scour depths is an integral part of engineering design. Whilst there are a substantial number of predictive equations available to estimate the scour resulting from bridge piers, other types of structures have been less examined. This paper reports on flume experiments and numerical modelling to examine the role of submerged sills in the development of scour. Sills can be utilised in a channel to control bed stability, influence mixing dynamics or dictate water levels. Additionally, sills can occur due to infrastructure including riprap-covered pipeline crossings. The majority of previous work on sills has been undertaken on unsubmerged or partially submerged sills. The only experimental work on submerged sills is restricted to a range of conditions not applicable to pipeline crossings in large sand-bed rivers. This paper presents experiments, using artificial light-weight sediment (crushed walnut shell), undertaken with a fixed flow depth but a range of velocities and sill heights, all of which are in the surface flow regime. Hydrodynamic numerical simulations were run for the same conditions to gain insight into the corresponding flow structure.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.223 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueE3S Web of ConferencesSame topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207