MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132176341

Assessment of debris issues impacting design of a flood diversion project in a large scale physical model

2017· article· en· W7132176341 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Paul Knox, Andrew Cornett, Mitchel Provan

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpillwayFlood mythFlooding (psychology)Debris flowDebrisChannel (broadcasting)ErosionHydrology (agriculture)Levee
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Elbow River flows through southwest Calgary and is susceptible to flooding with catastrophic results. During the flood event of June 2013, the Elbow River’s peak flow rates reached approximately 1,240 m3/s, far exceeding the rivers’s natural capacity of less than 200 m3/s. The losses experienced during the flood were valued in excess of $5B. The Springbank Off-stream Storage Project was conceived to divert and store a portion of the Elbow River flood flows. Some of the main structural components of the project include a diversion and spillway structure that intersects the Elbow River, a diversion channel, and an off-stream storage reservoir. Following the development of an initial diversion and spillway structure design, a large scale (1:16) physical model study was commissioned to assist in assessing and improving the initial design to ensure good performance under a range of flood conditions. The main objectives of the physical model study were to: determine the hydraulic performance of various key elements of the new structures for a range of operational and extreme flow conditions; assess the behaviour of sediments and woody debris within and around the structures; and help refine the proposed designs to improve conveyance, reduce the risk of erosion and sedimentation, reduce the risk of blockage by debris, improve constructability, and reduce costs where possible. This paper provides a full description of the physical model with a focus on the tests that assessed and studied the impacts of woody debris.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARC→Same topicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes→French-language works237,207→