MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1511625805 · doi:10.1002/esp.2130

Vertical mixing of gravel over a long flood series

2011· article· en· W1511625805 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J.K. Haschenburger

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Surface Processes and Landforms · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Geographic Society
KeywordsBed loadGeologyFlood mythHydrology (agriculture)Series (stratigraphy)BedformSedimentGrain sizeAlluviumGeomorphologySediment transportGeotechnical engineeringArchaeologyPaleontologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Vertical sediment exchange is a fundamental component of bedload transport in gravel‐bed channels. This paper describes the characteristic depth of exchange achieved over a long flood series. Analysis is based on 11 recoveries of magnetically tagged gravels deployed in Carnation Creek, Canada, completed between 1990 and 2008. Vertical grain exchange mixes gravels throughout the streambed relatively rapidly. Within one to eight floods the mean burial depth approaches two times the surface layer thickness, quantified by the 90th percentile of the size distribution. Finer gravels are mixed more rapidly into the bed than coarser gravels. Both active and passive grain exchanges throughout most of the bed produce the overall vertical distribution of marked grains. Gravel exchanges exhibit fairly consistent patterns once tracers are well mixed by large floods. Results highlight the role of flood sequence in determining exchange depths, support the notion of an upper limit to exchange, and underscore the importance of passive grain exchange. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations55
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth Surface Processes and LandformsSame topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207