Estimating parameters of the channel width–flow discharge relation using rill and gully channel junction data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Eroding channels can usually be characterized by a power relationship between channel width (W) and channel discharge (Q). This paper examines the WQ relation using a recently developed channel junction approach to extend the validity of the WQ relation and to develop a procedure for estimating the WQ exponent and proportionality coefficient. Rill and gully channel data from the literature, and new data collected in different badland areas and in a few forest mountain streams, are analysed. Analysis shows that the WQ relation for channel width collected in badlands and forests agrees with trends observed for cropland. The exponent increases with increasing channel width in a continuous fashion rather than in a step‐like way and tends to a maximum whose value ranges between 0·5 and 0·6. The proportionality coefficient can be split into two terms, one expressing the case in which an eroding channel can broaden, the other reflecting the difficulties in removing the less erodible clods or rock fragments from the channel bed. Its splitting allows the development of a more correct form of the WQ relation in agreement with modern approaches of channel geometry: one part has the dimension of a discharge and makes the power base dimensionless, while the other brings the dimension of a length, needed for the channel width, into the WQ relation. The interpretation of the two constants is supported by data collected in rainfall‐runoff simulation experiments conducted in the field. Values characterizing the two constants in some environments are also given. Nevertheless the approach is not sufficiently parameterized yet to be of practical use (e.g. in models or for estimating peak discharge in areas where rill channels have formed). Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".