Visual characterization technique for gravel-cobble river bed surface sediments; validation and environmental applications Contribution to the programme of CIRSA (Centre Interuniversitaire de Recherche sur le Saumon Atlantique)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an evaluation of the feasibility and the reliability of a visual characterization technique for gravel–cobble river bed surface substrate. Based on principal axis regressions, using phi scale (ϕ), comparisons of visual estimation and grid sampling techniques show that useful predictive relations (R2 = 0·78–0·88) exist between visual estimates of the surface d16, d50 and d84 and estimates obtained for the same percentiles with the grid sampling technique. Comparisons of visual estimation and the surface-bulk sampling technique also indicate a predictive relation (R2 = 0·70) between the d50 of the two methods. Trained operators can visually estimate gravel–cobble bed surface d16 to uncertainties of 41 per cent, d50 to 15 per cent and d84 to 11 per cent (for example, there is a 5·5 mm error on a d84 size of 50 mm). Furthermore, evidence shows that if operators are properly trained, a calibration relation for each percentile can be applied independently of operators. This visual characterization allows effective detailed mapping of spatial patterns in substrate size distribution along extensive reaches of gravel-bed rivers. The technique can be very useful in creating terrain models for various geomorphological, hydrological and biological applications such as the determination of entrainment thresholds, hydraulic roughness and substrate suitability for benthic insects or salmonid habitat. Copyright © 2001 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".