A Bayesian Monte-Carlo Uncertainty Model for Assessment of Shear Stress Entropy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The entropy models have been recently adopted in many studies to evaluate the distribution of the shear stress in circular channels. However, the uncertainty in their predictions and their reliability remains an open question. We present a novel method to evaluate the uncertainty of four popular entropy models, including Shannon, Shannon-Power Low (PL), Tsallis, and Renyi, in shear stress estimation in circular channels. The Bayesian Monte-Carlo (BMC) uncertainty method is simplified considering a 95% Confidence Bound (CB). We developed a new statistic index called as FREEopt-based OCB (FOCB) using the statistical indices Forecasting Range of Error Estimation (FREE) and the percentage of observed data in the CB (Nin), which integrates their combined effect. The Shannon and Shannon PL entropies had close values of the FOCB equal to 8.781 and 9.808, respectively, had the highest certainty in the calculation of shear stress values in circular channels followed by traditional uniform flow shear stress and Tsallis models with close values of 14.491 and 14.895, respectively. However, Renyi entropy with much higher values of FOCB equal to 57.726 has less certainty in the estimation of shear stress than other models. Using the presented results in this study, the amount of confidence in entropy methods in the calculation of shear stress to design and implement different types of open channels and their stability is determined.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".