Discharge coefficient prediction of canal radial gate using neurocomputing models: an investigation of free and submerged flow scenarios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the current study, three machine learning (ML) models, i.e. Gaussian process regression (GPR), generalized regression neural network (GRNN), and multigene genetic programming (MGGP), were developed for predicting the discharge coefficient (Cd) of a radial gate under two different flow conditions, i.e. free and submerged. The modeling development of the flow and geometry input variables for the Cd was determined based on statistical correlations. We also performed a sensitivity analysis of the input variables for the Cd. The modeling results indicated that the developed ML models attained acceptable predictable performance; however, the prediction accuracy of the models was better under the free flow condition. In quantitative terms, the minimum root mean square error (RMSE) value was 0.010 using the GPR model and 0.019 using the MGGP model for the submerged and free flow conditions, respectively. The sensitivity analysis evidenced that the ratio of the gate opening height to the depth of water in the upstream (W:Yo) was the influential variable for the Cd under the free flow condition, whereas the ratio of the depth of water in the upstream to the depth of water in downstream (Yo:YT) was the influential variable for the Cd under the submerged flow condition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".