MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of Perforation Geometry on Pipe Drainage in Agricultural Lands

2020· article· en· W3020919185 on OpenAlexaff
Naresh Gaj, Chandra A. Madramootoo

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.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.003
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

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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Irrigation and Drainage EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207