Representation of vegetation and other nonerodible elements in aeolian shear stress partitioning models for predicting transport threshold
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of nonerodible elements is well understood to be a reducing factor for soil erosion by wind, but the limits of its protection of the surface and erosion threshold prediction are complicated by the varying geometry, spatial organization, and density of the elements. The predictive capabilities of the most recent models for estimating wind driven particle fluxes are reduced because of the poor representation of the effectiveness of vegetation to reduce wind erosion. Two approaches have been taken to account for roughness effects on sediment transport thresholds. Marticorena and Bergametti (1995) in their dust emission model parameterize the effect of roughness on threshold with the assumption that there is a relationship between roughness density and the aerodynamic roughness length of a surface. Raupach et al. (1993) offer a different approach based on physical modeling of wake development behind individual roughness elements and the partition of the surface stress and the total stress over a roughened surface. A comparison between the models shows the partitioning approach to be a good framework to explain the effect of roughness on entrainment of sediment by wind. Both models provided very good agreement for wind tunnel experiments using solid objects on a nonerodible surface. However, the Marticorena and Bergametti (1995) approach displays a scaling dependency when the difference between the roughness length of the surface and the overall roughness length is too great, while the Raupach et al. (1993) model's predictions perform better owing to the incorporation of the roughness geometry and the alterations to the flow they can cause.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".