Determination of canal seepage loss in Arrah Main Canal: A case study<sup>*</sup>
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 In this study, seepage losses have been determined by the direct inflow–outflow method at four selected reaches of the unlined Arrah Main Canal. Grain size analyses of bed materials of all reaches have been carried out, and in situ hydraulic conductivities have been computed using the Guelph permeameter method in all the reaches. The inflow and outflow discharges of all the reaches have been measured using the area–velocity method. The cross‐section and velocity profiles at the corresponding canal sections have been measured using an echo sounder and a digital current meter, respectively, upstream and downstream of all the selected reaches. Seepage loss in each reach has been computed using the continuity equation assuming the evaporation losses are negligible. Also, the empirical equations (Molesworth, Offengenden, and Moritz) have been used to calculate the seepage losses in these reaches and compared with the seepage losses determined by the experimental observations. The measured seepage losses in the unlined Arrah Main Canal varied from 3.66 to 13.4 m 3 /s/10 6 m 2 . The percentage of seepage losses varied from 2.2% to 8.35%, and seepage losses measured and estimated using empirical equations were comparable.
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