Experimental study and modeling of hydraulic jump for a suddenly expanding stilling basin using different hybrid algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hydraulic jump is a highly important phenomenon for dissipation of energy. This event, which involves flow regime change, can occur in many different types of stilling basins. In this study, hydraulic jump characteristics such as relative jump length and sequent depth ratio occurring in a suddenly expanding stilling basin were estimated using hybrid extreme learning machine (ELM). To hybridize ELM, imperialist competitive algorithm (ICA), firefly algorithm (FA) and particle swarm optimization (PSO) metaheuristic algorithms were implemented. In addition, six different models were established to determine effective dimensionless (relative) input variables. A new data set was constructed by adding the data obtained from the experimental study in the present research to the data obtained from the literature. The performance of each model was evaluated using k-fold cross-validation. Results showed that ICA hybridization slightly outperformed FA and PSO methods. Considering relative input parameters, Froude number (Fr), expansion ratio (B) and relative sill height (S), effective input combinations were Fr–B–S and Fr–B for the prediction of the sequent depth ratio (Y) and relative hydraulic jump length (Lj/h1), respectively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".