MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1916453331 · doi:10.1029/2005wr003993

Prediction of discharge from water surface width in a braided river with implications for at‐a‐station hydraulic geometry

2006· article· en· W1916453331 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Ashmore, Emilie Sauks

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydraulicsGeometryChannel (broadcasting)GeologySurface (topology)Water dischargeHydrology (agriculture)Range (aeronautics)Hydraulic structureGeotechnical engineeringMaterials sciencePhysicsMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The total discharge of small braided rivers can be monitored nearly continuously using ground‐based, orthorectified oblique images and a locally derived relationship between mean water surface width in a reach and total discharge with accuracy of the order of 10%. The width‐discharge relationship is nearly linear over the normal range of summer flows measured in this proglacial stream. The width‐discharge relation for a given location and channel configuration is transferable to adjacent reaches with different morphology with little loss in accuracy. However, the prospect of a more universal relation for braided rivers is remote because of differences in channel geometry and hydraulics between rivers. The classical at‐a‐station hydraulic geometry exponent for width in this case is approximately 1.05, which is unique, well above that observed in the few other braided rivers for which this has been derived, and implies almost no change in mean velocity and depth with changing stage.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations146
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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