MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064969581 · doi:10.1002/esp.1682

Flow resistance in steep mountain streams

2008· article· en· W2064969581 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Surface Processes and Landforms · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityBC Hydro (Canada)
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser UniversityMinistry of Environment
KeywordsTributarySurface finishHydraulic roughnessHydrology (agriculture)Flow (mathematics)GeologySTREAMSGrain sizeSortingFlow resistanceEnvironmental scienceGeotechnical engineeringGeomorphologyGeometryMaterials scienceMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Resistance to flow at low to moderate stream discharge was examined in five small (12–77 km 2 drainage area) tributaries of Chilliwack River, British Columbia, more than half of which exhibit planar bed morphology. The resulting data set is composed of eight to 12 individual estimates of the total resistance to flow at 61 cross sections located in 13 separate reaches of five tributaries to the main river. This new data set includes 625 individual estimates of resistance to flow at low to moderate river stage. Resistance to flow in these conditions is high, highly variable and strongly dependent on stage. The Darcy–Weisbach resistance factor (ff) varies over six orders of magnitude (0·29–12 700) and Manning's n varies over three orders of magnitude (0·047–7·95). Despite this extreme range, both power equations at the individual cross sections and Keulegan equations for reach‐averaged values describe the hydraulic relations well. Roughness is divided into grain and form (considered as all non‐grain sources) components. Form roughness is the dominant component, accounting for about 90% of the total roughness of the system (i.e., form roughness is on average 8.6 times as great as grain roughness). Of the various quantitative and qualitative form‐roughness indicators observed, only the sorting coefficient ( σ = D 84 / D 50 ) correlates well with form roughness. Copyright © 2008 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it