Comparison of Turbine Discharge Measured by Current Meters and Acoustic Scintillation Flow Meter at
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performance tests were conducted at Unit 22 at Hydro-Québec’s Laforge-2 plant between June 11 and 15, 1997. These tests included measurements of the discharge through the turbine using current meters. Simultaneous measurements were also taken in one bay of the intake with an Acoustic Scintillation Flow Meter (ASFM). The ASFM is a new instrument which offers unique advantages for measuring intake flows in low-head, short intake plants for which current meters have been the traditional and only effective method. It is non-intrusive, and its deployment in intake gate slots is straightforward, allowing data to be collected with a minimum of plant downtime. Laforge-2 is typical of large to medium-sized plants of that type: it is equipped with two 147 MW Kaplan turbines, each with a three-bay intake. The bays at the metering section are 19.7m high and 6.1m wide. The net head for the plant is 27.4m. The current metering used one hundred ninety measuring points in each bay, obtained using forty individual current meters mounted in four rows of 10 on a frame 4.6m high. The current meter rows were spaced 1.08m apart vertically. The inclination of the meters was controlled by a hydraulic adjustment system to align them with the flow. The ASFM transducer arrays were mounted on the same frame as the current meters in Bay 1, at the trailing (downstream) edge of
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".