Uncertainty Assessment of Entropy-Based Circular Channel Shear Stress Prediction Models Using a Novel Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Entropy models have been recently adopted in many studies to evaluate the shear stress distribution in open-channel flows. Although the uncertainty of Shannon and Tsallis entropy models were analyzed separately in previous studies, the uncertainty of other entropy models and comparisons of their reliability remain an open question. In this study, a new method is presented to evaluate the uncertainty of four entropy models, Shannon, Shannon-Power Law (PL), Tsallis, and Renyi, in shear stress prediction of the circular channels. In the previous method, the model with the largest value of the percentage of observed data within the confidence bound (Nin) and the smallest value of Forecasting Range of Error Estimation (FREE) is the most reliable. Based on the new method, using the effect of Optimized Forecasting Range of Error Estimation (FREEopt) and Optimized Confidence Bound (OCB), a new statistic index called FREEopt-based OCB (FOCB) is introduced. The lower the value of FOCB, the more certain the model. Shannon and Shannon PL entropies had close values of the FOCB equal to 8.781 and 9.808, respectively, and had the highest certainty, followed by ρgRs and Tsallis models with close values of 14.491 and 14.895, respectively. However, Renyi entropy, with the value of FOCB equal to 57.726, had less certainty.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".