MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145802584 · doi:10.1002/esp.1483

Hydrologic control of waveforms on small meandering rivers

2007· article· en· W2145802584 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Roger T.J. Phillips, André Robert

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Surface Processes and Landforms · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMeander (mathematics)GeologyHydrology (agriculture)WavelengthStream powerSinuosityChannel (broadcasting)Scale (ratio)Flood mythWaveformPlanformGeomorphologyErosionGeographyGeometryCartographyArchaeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Small river channels within the Humber Basin of Southern Ontario exhibit irregular meandering patterns; however, contemporary river hydrology appears capable of controlling the scale of regular waveform development. Recent changes in river planform are assessed through a bi‐temporal comparison of channel planform using orthorectified aerial photography and statistical analysis of curvature series based on autocorrelation and spectral analysis. Calculated meander wavelengths are acceptable given traditional relationships between wavelength and mean annual flood discharge. It is also evident that changes in stream power are highly correlated with changes in the dominant wavelengths between channel reaches in this study. Gradual development of small scale waveforms following a rare hydrological and geomorphological event in 1954 further confirms that these forms can be attributed to the typical discharge regime. This paper argues that the scaling of wavelengths with discharge can be considered a strong factor controlling planform evolution on some small meandering river systems, despite manifest irregular planforms. Copyright © 2007 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 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 score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth Surface Processes and LandformsSame topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207