Flocculation: a key process in the sediment flux of a large, glacier‐fed lake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigates the consequences of flocculation for sediment flux in glacier‐fed Lillooet Lake, British Columbia based on density, fractal dimension, in situ profiles of sediment concentration and size distribution, and settling velocity equations presented in the literature. Sediment flux attributed to macroflocs during the late spring and summer accounts for a significant portion of sediment flux in the lake, equivalent to at least one‐quarter of the average annual sediment flux. Fine sediment is reaching the lake floor faster in flocs than occurs if settling as individual grains. This flux varies both spatially and temporally over the observation period, suggesting a link between deposition via flocculation and the properties of bottom sediments. Macrofloc flux increased through June, reached a peak during July, and then declined into August. Macrofloc flux was greatest in the distal end of the first basin, approximately 10 km from the point of inflow. Relatively high excess densities (∼0·1 g cm –3 at 500 µm) for flocs in situ are consistent with a composition dominated by inorganic primary particles. Microlaminations within Lillooet Lake varves have been linked by earlier workers to discharge events, and the action of turbidity currents, emanating from the Lillooet River. While turbidity currents undoubtedly occur in Lillooet Lake, these results demonstrate flocculation as an adjunct process linking discharge, lake level, macrofloc flux, bulk density and microlaminations. In situ measurements of sediment settling velocity in glacier‐fed lakes are required to better constrain flux rates, and permit comparison between flocculation in lacustrine environments with existing studies of estuarine, marine and fluvial flocculation. 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 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".