MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of Perforation Geometry on Pipe Drainage in Agricultural Lands

2020· article· en· W3020919185 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerforationDrainageDrawdown (hydrology)Water tableGeotechnical engineeringGeologyGroundwaterGeometryMaterials scienceMathematicsAquiferComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corrugated high density polyethylene pipes, where groundwater enters through perforations on the pipe wall, are widely used in subsurface drainage systems on agricultural lands. There has been a growing interest in using circular holes in the valleys of corrugated pipes to improve the hydraulic performance of subsurface drains. However, the effects of these circular perforations on the entrance resistance (αe), delivery ratio (Q/Q0), drain spacing, and water table drawdown have not been adequately investigated for corrugated pipes. This study uses a numerical model, calibrated with datasets from sand tank experiments, to simulate the effects of perforation shape, size, and configuration on αe and Q/Q0. The results show that Q/Q0 in corrugated pipes with circular holes is 20% lower than that for plain wall pipes with the same perforation configuration. Perforations shaped as rectangular slots have half the αe of circular holes with the same surface area. It is concluded that the use of rectangular slots is hydraulically more advantageous than circular holes in the valleys of corrugated pipes.

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 score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.165 · 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