Sediment Transport on Roberts Bank: A Sandy Intertidal Flat on the Fraser River Delta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Waves and currents were monitored over a range of incident forcing between March 23 and April 24, 2003, on Roberts Bank, the sandy intertidal portion of the Fraser River Delta. A comparison of the dimensionless, current-induced skin friction with the critical skin friction for the initiation of sediment motion suggests that the currents are only capable of entraining sediment briefly with the ebbing tide or when enhanced by the wind. Since these wind-generated currents are associated with storm waves, which typically exceed the critical skin friction, they have a disproportionately large impact on the direction of the sediment transport. An energetics-based model, driven by locally measured near-bottom currents, is used to characterize the rate and direction of bedload and suspended load transport. The largest transport rates were predicted in response to storm waves and were initially directed onshore with weak oscillatory transport and alongshore by wind-generated currents that turned offshore as the ebbing currents strengthened. The integrated transport (over the duration of the study) was predicted to be weakly offshore, but this is ascribed to the coincidental occurrence of storm activity with the ebbing tide. It is argued that if storm waves were equally distributed between the flood and ebb phases of the tide, the wind-generated currents and oscillatory transport would lead to a partly onshore-directed net transport during storms, which may in turn lead to tidal flat accretion. This suggests that sand flats are morphodynamically different than mudflats and open beaches, although further study is required to ascertain the link between the small-scale observations of this study and the larger-scale transport pathways that are ultimately responsible for tidal flat morphology.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".