MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2900476131 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2018-0184

Effect of discharge and upstream jam angle on the flow distribution beneath a simulated ice jam

2018· article· en· W2900476131 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Baafour Nyantekyi-Kwakye, Tanzim Ahmed, Shawn P. Clark, Mark F. Tachie, Karen Dow

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaManitoba Hydro
KeywordsMechanicsTurbulenceParticle image velocimetryPower lawGeologyShear stressAdverse pressure gradientBoundary layerPressure gradientReynolds numberMeteorologyPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The velocity field beneath simulated rough ice jams under various upstream jam angles and discharge were investigated using a particle image velocimetry system. Three discharges were examined at 2.3 L/s, 3.4 L/s, and 4.0 L/s and two upstream ice jam angles were tested at 4° and 6°. Increasing the discharge resulted in high turbulence production beneath the jam. The adverse pressure gradient exerted on the flow increased the levels of the Reynolds shear stress. The measured velocities beneath the jam were used to assess the performances of three traditional field measurement techniques as well as the validity of the two-parameter power law. The two-point measurement technique performed remarkably well with the least mean bias error of 2.0%. The error associated with the different techniques showed their inability to accurately predict the average velocity under high discharge. The two-parameter power law accurately predicted velocity profiles within the equilibrium section of the jam, but failed within the boundary layers when the flow was subjected to a pressure gradient.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering→Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→