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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to measure flow rate in open channels, including irrigation channels, hydraulic structures are used with a relatively high degree of reliance. Venturi flumes are among the most common and efficient type, and they can measure discharge using only the water level at a specific point within the converging section and an empirical discharge relationship. There have been a limited number of attempts to simulate a venturi flume using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) tools to improve the accuracy of the readings and empirical formula. In this study, simulations on different flumes were carried out using a total of seven different models, including the standard k–ε, RNG k–ε, realizable k–ε, k–ω, and k–ω SST models. Furthermore, large-eddy simulation (LES) and detached eddy simulation (DES) were performed. Comparison of the simulated results with physical test data shows that among the turbulence models, the k–ε model provides the most accurate results, followed by the dynamic k LES model when compared to the physical experimental data. The overall margin of error was around 2–3%, meaning that the simulation model can be reliably used to estimate the discharge in the channel. In different cross-sections within the flume, the k–ε model provides the lowest percentage of error, i.e., 1.93%. This shows that the water surface data are well calculated by the model, as the water surface profiles also follow the same vertical curvilinear path as the experimental data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it