MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000235815 · doi:10.1080/00221686.2019.1703047

Acoustic sampling effects on bedload quantification using acoustic Doppler current profilers

2020· article· en· W3000235815 on OpenAlexaff
Slaven Conevski, Massimo Guerrero, Axel Winterscheid, Colin D. Rennie, Nils Rüther

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydraulic Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsBed loadGeologyDoppler effectAcoustic Doppler velocimetryAcoustic Doppler current profilerSampling (signal processing)AcousticsEnvironmental scienceCurrent (fluid)Sediment transportSedimentLaser Doppler velocimetryGeomorphologyOceanographyOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides an evaluation of a hydro-acoustic technique for efficient quantification of the bedload transport in riverine environments. Stationary bedload measurements were conducted simultaneously at different study sites, using three different acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCP) working at four different frequencies. The raw apparent bedload velocities were de-spiked and filtered in a streamwise direction. Then, functional correlations were observed between the magnitudes of the apparent velocities and the bedload transport rates measured by the conventional bedload sampler. Each ADCP yielded different results because of the different frequency backscatter sensitivity and acoustic penetration in the active bedload layer. In addition to the frequency, other acoustic parameters such as the percentage of the filtered data, transducers width, beam opening angle, beam-grazing angle and the pulse length, contributed to the acoustic bedload sampling. The influence of these parameters is examined, and recommendations are given for the performance and limitations of each instrument.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.241 · 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.

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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hydraulic ResearchSame topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207