Rate of Growth and Other Features of the Temporal Development of Pool-Bar Complexes in Meandering Streams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite substantial research on various aspects of bed deformation in meandering streams, no systematic effort has yet been made to establish the timescales of the process. Additionally, in past experiments, as a rule, the bed was not monitored throughout the development, which has left undocumented essential features of the growth of meandering pool-bar complexes. In this paper, an effort is made to penetrate some of these aspects. More specifically, the five laboratory runs presented by the writers in their 2009 paper in this journal are revisited with the following two objectives: (1) to reveal the rate of growth of the resulting meandering pool-bar complexes; and (2) to document the extent, if any, of upstream or downstream migration of developing pool-bar complexes in examples of sufficiently wide streams in which the bed deformation is primarily because of the convective behavior of flow. The runs were conducted in a 70° sine-generated channel having rigid banks. In each run, the bed was allowed to deform from an initially flat bed to the equilibrium state, the deformation monitored throughout the runs. It was found that the bed development was very rapid at the early stages of the runs, with approximately 70% and 90% of the development accomplished when only one-quarter and one-half, respectively, of the total bed development time had been reached. An equation describing the growth rate of the pool–bar complexes is proposed. The plan location of these complexes remained invariant throughout each run. However, the location of maximum erosion within the pools noticeably shifted upstream during the development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".