MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047225603 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2019-0805

Modeling study of dredging induced sediment plume transport in Hamilton Harbour

2020· article· en· W3047225603 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Sediment Control
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDredgingHarbourPlumeSediment transportAdvectionEnvironmental scienceRange (aeronautics)SedimentMarine engineeringReefGeologyOceanographyMeteorologyEngineeringGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To assess and predict the direction and range of a dredging induced contaminated sediment plume on the surrounding environment, a three-dimensional hydrodynamic and mud transport modeling system MIKE 3-FM was used in the Randle Reef area of Hamilton Harbour. Simulations were carried out with the typical local and maximum winds under which the dredging operation would proceed. The dredge plume travel pattern and range in both horizontal and vertical planes are examined under various wind conditions and model mesh resolutions. It was found that the simulated plume extents were very sensitive to transport model mesh resolution due to the additional numerical advection induced in the calculations. Detailed discussion of this particular issue has not been observed in other publications. The results of this simulation provide useful information for remediation project managers in planning and guiding the environmental monitoring of dredging operations. In addition, the methodology used in this study can be adapted to other dredging projects.

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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.157 · 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