The gravel-sand transition: Sediment dynamics in a diffuse extension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As gravel-bedded rivers fine in the downstream direction, they characteristically exhibit an abrupt transition from gravel- to sand-bedded conditions. The prevailing theory for why abrupt gravel-sand transitions emerge is based on bed load sorting of a bimodal sediment. The abruptness is thought to be a consequence of sand overwhelming the gravel-sand mixture once it reaches a critical coverage on the bed. The role suspension plays in the development of gravel-sand transitions has not been fully appreciated. The Fraser River, British Columbia, is an archetypical abrupt gravel-sand transition with a “diffuse extension” composed of a sand bed with some patches of gravel. We examine flow, shear stress, and suspended sediment flux in the diffuse extension to better understand sediment dynamics where the sand bed emerges. Sand is carried in suspension upstream of the primary abrupt gravel-sand transition, but in the diffuse extension, sand is moved as both bed load and suspended load. We do not observe downstream gradients in shear stress or suspended sand flux through the diffuse extension that would suggest a gradual “rain out” of sand moving downstream, which raises the question, how is the sand bed formed? Sediment advection length scales indicate that with the exception of very fine sand that moves as wash load in the diffuse extension, fractions coarser than the median sand size cannot be carried in suspension for more than one channel width. This suggests that sand is deposited en masse at the beginning of the diffuse extension, forming a sediment slug at low flood flows that is smeared downstream at high flood flows to form the sand reach.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".