Stability of delta distributary networks and their bifurcations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Delta distributary networks are created by bifurcating channels that commonly split their discharges unequally. The origin and stability of these asymmetrical fine‐grained cohesive bifurcations are investigated here using Delft3D, a morphodynamic flow and sediment transport model. Results are compared to bifurcations on the Mossy delta, Saskatchewan, Canada, that have remained stable for decades. Over a range of channel aspect ratios, friction factors, and Shields numbers, we find three equilibrium functions relating the discharge ratio of the bifurcate arms at equilibrium to the Shields number. One function defines symmetrical configurations (equal partitioning of discharge), while the other two define asymmetrical configurations (unequal partitioning of discharge). Discharge asymmetries and morphologies of Mossy delta bifurcations are consistent with these predictions. Among the equilibrium bifurcations, only the asymmetrical type is stable to perturbations, such as a partial closing of one throat. This possibly explains why asymmetrical bifurcations are more common in nature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".