MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400491586 · doi:10.1061/jhend8.hyeng-13688

Influence of Debris Jam Formed by Trees on Bridge Pier Scour

2024· article· en· W4400491586 on OpenAlexaff
Wenjun Zhang, Ioan Nistor, Colin D. Rennie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydraulic Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPierBridge scourDebrisGeotechnical engineeringGeologyDebris flowBridge (graph theory)Large woody debrisHydrology (agriculture)EngineeringCivil engineeringOceanographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Debris jams contribute to bridge pier failures. Previous investigations showed that a debris jam can constrict the flow cross section, enhance flow intensity, and result in significant scour. Physical modeling was conducted to investigate the influence of debris jams on scour depth. Instead of using a static block to represent a debris jam, dynamic debris jams composed of real tree seedlings were investigated to represent jams forming of woody debris with roots and branches. The dynamic jam was achieved by continuously releasing individual seedlings from upstream. The resulting seedling jams had a typical half-cone shape and generally grew continuously over time, with observed scour increasing with the size of the debris jam. The scour in the presence of a dynamic debris jam could have depth up to twice and volume up to eight times that of a pier without a debris jam. In addition, the dynamic debris jam also induced additional hydraulic head across the cylinder pier, which correlated with the size of debris jam and Froude number.

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)0.000
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 score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hydraulic EngineeringSame topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207