Bar and dune development during a freshet: Fraser River Estuary, British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bi‐weekly multi‐track sonar surveys collected along a 2‐km reach of the estuarine South Arm of the Fraser River, British Columbia, Canada, during seasonal high flows document the initiation, development and interaction of dune and bar morphologies. Bedforms of several scales developed in well‐delineated fields. Bedforms that appear to fit accepted equilibrium depth‐scaling developed in the main channel during rising discharge when there was little local aggradation. During the rising stage, a bar also formed along the tidal shelf of the channel, migrated downstream and expanded into the main channel. Dunes that formed along the bar crest, a region of rapid deposition, lagged flow conditions and were larger than expected based on depth‐scaling relations. The larger dunes developed simultaneously, although bar growth lagged dune development and was initially partially obscured by the more rapidly developing dune field. It appears that rapid deposition enhances dune development along the channel tidal shelf to dimensions larger than would be expected by simple depth‐scaling rules. Smaller dunes that fit equilibrium depth‐scaling relations re‐established themselves throughout the study area during falling discharge when there was again little or no aggradation. Bed‐material transport rates estimated from the migration rates of the large dunes suggest that, at high flows, the dunes transport the majority of the material found within the bar.
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) | 0.010 | 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".