Using multiple bed load measurements: Toward the identification of bed dilation and contraction in gravel‐bed rivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines bed load transport processes in a small gravel‐bed river (Béard Creek, Québec) using three complementary methods: bed elevation changes between successive floods, bed activity surveys using tags inserted into the bed, and bed load transport rates from bed load traps. The analysis of 20 flood events capable of mobilizing bed material led to the identification of divergent results among the methods. In particular, bed elevation changes were not consistent with the bed activity surveys. In many cases, bed elevation changes were significant (1 to 2 times the D 50 ) even if the bed surface had not been activated during the flood, leading to the identification of processes of bed dilation and contraction that occurred over 10% to 40% of the bed surface. These dynamics of the river bed prevent accurate derivation of bed load transport rates from topographic changes, especially for low magnitude floods. This paper discusses the mechanisms that could explain the dilation and contraction of particles within the bed and their implications in fluvial dynamics. Bed contraction seems to be the result of the winnowing of the fine sediments under very low gravel transport. Bed dilation seems to occur on patches of the bed at the threshold of motion where various processes such as fine sediment infiltration lead to the maintenance of a larger sediment framework volume. Both processes are also influenced by flood history and the initial local bed state and in turn may have a significant impact on sediment transport and morphological changes in gravel‐bed rivers.
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 | 0.002 | 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".