Predicting submerged hydraulic jump characteristics using machine learning methods
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
Abstract Hydraulic jump typically occurs downstream of hydraulic structures by converting the supercritical to subcritical flow regimes. If the tail-water depth is greater than the secondary depth of the hydraulic jump, the jump will be submerged (SHJ). In these conditions, the momentum equations will not have an analytical solution and a new solution is required. In this study, after dimensional analysis, an experimental study was conducted in a rectangular flume with a length of 9 m, a width of 0.5 m and a depth of 0.45 m in a wide range of Froude numbers (Fr = 3.5 to 11.5) and submergence ratios (Sr = 0.1 to 4). The data were then normalized and divided into two parts of training and testing. A new technique, DGMDH, was used to predict the submerged hydraulic jump characteristics. The results were then compared with the GMDH model. The results showed that the DGMDH model estimated the relative submergence depth, jump length, and relative energy loss with accuracy of R2 = 0.9944 and MAPE = 0.038, R2 = 0.9779 and MAPE = 0.0387, and R2 = 0.9932 and MAPE = 0.0192, respectively. While the accuracy of the GMDH model for relative submergence depth, jump length, and relative energy loss was respectively R2 = 0.9923 and MAPE = 0.043, R2 = 0.9671 and MAPE = 0.0527, and R2 = 0.9932 and MAPE = 0.0192. Due to superiority of the DGMDH model over the GMDH model, it is recommended to use this model to estimate the submerged hydraulic jump characteristics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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