MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1856700257 · doi:10.1029/2008wr007521

Length scale of braided river morphology

2009· article· en· W1856700257 on OpenAlexafffund
Elizabeth J. Hundey, Peter Ashmore

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConfluenceSinuosityBifurcationScalingBar (unit)Scale (ratio)GeometryChannel (broadcasting)GeologyPoint barLength scaleMorphology (biology)Hydrology (agriculture)MathematicsGeomorphologyMechanicsGeotechnical engineeringFluvialPhysicsGeographyCartographyEngineeringComputer scienceNonlinear system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pool‐bar topography in single‐channel rivers has a length scale proportional to channel width. In braided rivers confluence‐bifurcation units are analogous to pool‐bar morphology and, in some cases, develop from initial alternate bars. Consequently, confluence‐bifurcation units are expected to have length that scales with the central anabranch width and that constitutes a basic length scale braided channel morphology. This idea was tested using measurements from a physical model of a gravel bed braided river and from aerial photographs of braided rivers. Length (distance from confluence to bifurcation), anabranch width, and confluence angle of confluence‐bifurcation units were measured. A simple length scaling is evident across the range of scales; confluence‐bifurcation length is 4–5 times the channel width. This scaling is a fundamental element of braided river morphology and suggests that braided patterns are created by processes, and have morphological regularity, similar to pool‐bar units of low‐sinuosity single‐thread rivers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.293
Teacher spread0.267 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations101
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207