Estimation of critical shear stress from cohesive strength meter‐derived erosion thresholds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measures of cohesive sediment erodibility, such as erosion thresholds and rates, are essential for the development of accurate sediment transport models. In situ devices for erodibility quantification are increasingly being used to capture the high spatial and temporal variability in erodibility found in natural cohesive sediments. The cohesive strength meter (CSM) is a small, hand‐held, commercially available device that has been used extensively in recent years to measure in situ erosion thresholds. However, the device is primarily used for relative measures of erosion thresholds, due to a difficulty in comparing the vertical forces generated by the CSM with horizontal bed shear stress. In this article, we describe the development of a methodology for the estimation of horizontal bed shear stress from CSM‐derived erosion thresholds. The approach used cohesive sediment mixtures with varying clay contents to create sediments with a range of erodibilities and tested them using the CSM and a laboratory annular flume. A calibration is proposed based on a comparison of mean erosion thresholds from each device per clay treatment. This study is the first successful inter‐comparison between CSM‐ and flume‐derived erosion thresholds. Significant differences in erosion thresholds were noted between CSM routines, so it is recommended that the empirical calibration be applied only to erosion thresholds estimated using the Sand 1 routine, and ranging from 40‐90 Pa stagnation pressure. The calibration allows the conversion of CSM‐derived erosion thresholds into critical shear stress, a form that permits incorporation into sediment transport models.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".