Evidence of Micro-Rotational Cells in Fluid Flow and Their Possible Implications for Sediment Transport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerable attention has been given to the determination of the initiation of sediment transport in both sand and gravel-bed rivers. The underlying purpose of these works has been to establish a predictive relationship between these variables and the rate of sediment transport. However, due to the numerous contributing variables involved, it has been difficult to arrive at the definitive relationship between all variables and rates of sediment transport. This paper investigates the relationship between developing micro-rotational cells and rates of sediment transport in a medium-sized stream containing a sand bed. Analysis of the relationship between flow vectors at different time intervals allows for the quantification of this pressure force which operates either on or off the bed, depending on the direction of rotation. Results from 21 near-bed sediment traps and fluid speed data at those locations show a strong relationship between variability in pressure near the bed and sediment transport rate (r 2 = .516) over a range of transport rates between 0.3 to 83 kg m-1 hr-1. This is an important result because it helps explain variation in transport rates when the relationship between fluid speed and transport rate is poor (r 2 = .138).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".