<i>In situ</i> measurements of sediment settling characteristics in floodplains using a LISST‐ST
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Due to a lack of data on settling velocities ( w s ) and grain size distributions (GSDs) in floodplain environments, sedimentation models often use calibrated rather than measured parameters. Since the characteristics of suspended matter differ from those of deposited sediment, it is impossible to derive the w s and GSD from the latter. Therefore, one needs to measure in situ suspended sediment concentrations (SSCs), settling velocities, effective grain sizes and sedimentation fluxes. For this purpose we used the LISST‐ST, a laser particle sizer combined with a settling tube. In 2002 (twice) and 2004, we located the LISST‐ST with an optical backscatter sensor and sediment traps in two floodplains in The Netherlands: one along the unembanked IJssel River, another along the embanked Waal River. Measurements revealed that the SSC in the floodplains varied in relation to the SSC in the river channel. Smaller flocs dominated the SSC, while larger flocs dominated the potential sedimentation fluxes. The in situ GSD in the IJssel floodplain was significantly coarser than in the Waal floodplain, while the dispersed median grain sizes were equal for both floodplains. Therefore, the dispersed median grain size was two to five times smaller than the effective one. The in situ grain size exhibited a significant positive relationship with w s , although the w s for the largest flocs showed high variability. Consequently, the variability in sedimentation fluxes was also large. In the actual sedimentation fluxes, and hence in sedimentation models, in situ grain sizes up to about 20 µm can be neglected. In floodplain sedimentation models the relation between settling velocity and in situ grain size can be used instead of Stokes's law, which is only valid for dispersed grain sizes. These models should also use adequate data on flow conditions as input, since these strongly influence the suspended sediment characteristics. Copyright © 2005 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".