MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reviewers

2007· article· en· W4254214790 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydraulic Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic flow and structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCold Regions Research and Engineering LaboratoryEngineer Research and Development CenterQueen Mary University of LondonUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillUniversität InnsbruckUniversità degli Studi di Napoli Federico IIBureau of ReclamationUniversità degli Studi di PerugiaHarbin Institute of TechnologyOrta Doğu Teknik ÜniversitesiUniversidad de ZaragozaNational Chiao Tung UniversityUniversidade de LisboaSeconda Università degli Studi di NapoliTsinghua UniversityDurham UniversityU.S. Geological SurveyUniversity of South CarolinaQueen's UniversityJohns Hopkins UniversityMyongji UniversitySharif University of TechnologyUniversity of AberdeenUniversità di BolognaKing Saud UniversityShanghai Educational Development FoundationHanyang UniversityPennsylvania State UniversityCharles Sturt UniversityMichigan State UniversityTechnische Universität DarmstadtCardiff UniversityBayer HealthCareUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of PatrasUniversity of CanterburyUniversité Catholique de LouvainUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnU.S. Environmental Protection AgencySyracuse UniversityNihon UniversityCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityOffice of Research and DevelopmentUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUniversity of MinnesotaKorea Maritime and Ocean UniversityUniversity of PennsylvaniaUniversity of GlasgowBrigham Young University
KeywordsGeologyEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Geotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The importance of reviewers for the quality of a peer-reviewed journal and ultimately for the hydraulic research community can hardly be overestimated.The Editorial Board would therefore like to express our appreciation to the reviewers of the journal, particularly those who agreed on multiple occasions to review manuscripts during the past year.As a token of our appreciation, we wish to recognize the following, who have contributed to the success of the journal and thereby to the advancement of hydraulic engineering.While due care has been taken to compile a complete and correct list, omissions as well as mistakes in spelling and misidentification of affiliations may have been made; and for these, apologies are offered in advance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hydraulic EngineeringSame topicHydraulic flow and structuresFrench-language works237,207