Morphology and evolution of bars in a wandering gravel‐bed river; lower Fraser river, British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A hierarchical typology for the channels and bars within aggradational wandering gravel‐bed rivers is developed from an examination of a 50 km reach of lower Fraser River, British Columbia, Canada. Unit bars, built by stacking of gravelly bedload sheets, are the key dynamic element of the sediment transfer system, linking sediment transport during individual freshets to the creation, development and remoulding of compound bar platforms that have either a lateral or medial style. Primary and secondary unit bars are identified, respectively, as those that deliver sediment to compound bars from the principal channel and those that redistribute sediment across the compound bar via seasonal anabranches and smaller channels. The record of bar accretion evident in ground‐penetrating radar sequences is consistent with the long‐term development of bar complexes derived from historical aerial photographs. For two compound bars, inter‐annual changes associated with individual sediment transport episodes are measured using detailed topographic surveys and longer‐term changes are quantified using sediment budgets derived for individual bars from periodic channel surveys. Annual sediment turnover on the bars is comparable with the bed material transfer rate along the channel, indicating that relatively little bed material bypasses the bars. Bar construction and change are accomplished mainly by lateral accretion as the river has limited capacity to raise bed load onto higher surfaces. Styles of accretion and erosion and, therefore, the major bar form morphologies on Fraser River are familiar and consistent with those in gravelly braided channels but the wandering style does exhibit some distinctive features. For example, 65‐year histories reveal the potential for long sequences of uninterrupted accretion in relatively stable wandering rivers that are unlikely in braided rivers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".