MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037730800 · doi:10.1002/rra.3659

Effects of upstream and downstream slopes and clay content on levee's breaching by overtopping

2020· article· en· W3037730800 on OpenAlexaff
Saeed Salehi, Amir H. Azimi

Bibliographic record

VenueRiver Research and Applications · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeveeGeotechnical engineeringErosionGeologyShear stressGeomorphologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The present study investigated the effects of clay content and levee's slopes on the breach formation process for levees constructed by both cohesive and non‐cohesive soils. Twelve experiments were carried out and the breach formation of levees was observed by measuring the breach discharge variations and scour topography with time. The initiation of surface erosion was analysed by comparing the estimated bed shear stress and the critical soil shear stress, and the rate of erosion during breaching was estimated by employing the erosion index. The erosion of levees due to overtopping was classified into three regimes of uniform surface erosion, erosion from the toe, and single scour formation. It was found that the upstream levee's slope had negligible effects on the breach process, whereas the downstream slope significantly increased the erosion index. The peak breach discharge increased with increasing downstream slope and it occurred earlier. Experimental results also showed that the peak breach discharge was higher in non‐cohesive levees than the cohesive embankments and it occurred much earlier. Based on dimensional analysis, empirical equations were proposed to predict the breach discharge and the topography of erosion during the breach.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRiver Research and ApplicationsSame topicDam Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207