On the location in flow plan of erosion–deposition zones in sine–generated meandering streams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper concerns the location in flow plan of the laterally adjacent erosion–deposition zones (“deeps” and “hills”) in sine–generated meandering streams. The aim of the paper is to gain insight into how the location of the aforementioned erosion–deposition zones is affected by stream sinuosity, as well as other geometric and flow–related parameters. For this purpose, a series of movable bed runs is carried out in a sine–generated channel having an intermediate value of the deflection angle θ0, namely 70°. This value extends the range of θ0–values investigated by previous authors, who tended to focus mainly on the limiting cases of “small” and “large” values of θ0 (θ0 ≤ 30° and θ0 ≥ 100°). The runs started from a flat bed, which subsequently was allowed to develop until the equilibrium state, or a near–equilibrium state was achieved. The bed topography maps showing the bed surface at the end of the present runs were analyed together with those from previous authors' runs. It is found that, all other conditions remaining the same, the L/2–long erosion–deposition zone which in streams having small θ0 extends from any apex–section ai to the next consecutive apex–section αi+1, gradually moves upstream as θ0 increases from 0 to 126°—so that in the limiting case of large θ0, this erosion–deposition zone extends from the crossover–section Oi to the crossover–section O i+1 (O i and O i+1 being the upstream– and downstream–crossover sections of the meander loop whose apex–section is αi). For any specified θ0, the location of the L/2–long erosion–deposition zones appears to be affected mainly by meander wavelength relative to flow width, and perhaps also by the flow friction factor. A quantity characterizing the different distributions in flow plan of the erosion–deposition zones is introduced, and its mathematical form is investigated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".