MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113160741 · doi:10.3390/s20247204

A Velocity Meter for Quantifying Advection Velocity Vectors in Large Water Bodies

2020· article· en· W3113160741 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Farzam Allafchi, Caterina Valeo, Angus Chu, Jianxun He, Waltfred Lee, Peter Oshkai, Norman F. Neumann

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFlow Measurement and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Victoria
FundersAlberta Innovates
KeywordsFlumeParticle image velocimetryMetreFlow measurementAdvectionFlow velocityVelocimetryCalibrationDoppler effectCurrent meterUltrasonic flow meterFlow (mathematics)Range (aeronautics)GeodesyParticle velocityFlow visualizationRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceGeologyOpticsAcousticsPhysicsMeteorologyMaterials scienceMechanicsMathematicsStatisticsTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A velocity meter was designed and built in order to meet market needs for an affordable instrument that measures the range of velocity magnitudes and direction experienced in medium- to large-sized water bodies. The velocity meter consists of a graduated plate with an injector protruding from the center and a camera held downward above the plate. Once the Dye Injection Velocity (DIV) meter is in the flow, dye is injected and the camera records the dye fluid transport. The recorded video is analyzed to determine the local flow velocity and direction. The DIV was calibrated for a range of velocities between 0.0094 m/s and 0.1566 m/s using particle image velocimetry (PIV) in a flow visualization flume. The accuracy of the instrument was found to be +6.3% and −9.8% of full scale. The coefficient of determination of the calibration curve was equal to 98%. Once calibrated, the DIV was deployed to the Inverness Stormwater pond in Calgary, Canada, for validation tests against an Acoustic Doppler Velocity (ADV) meter. During the validation tests, both flow velocity magnitude and direction were measured at several spatial points. The velocity magnitude results showed good agreement and the Mann-Whitney test showed no statistically significant difference (p-value > 0.05). At two spatial points, the differences between direction data were significant, which could be caused by the random errors involved in the validation test. However, the averaged data showed good agreement.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicFlow Measurement and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207