MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2278060612 · doi:10.14288/1.0062654

Flood control and sediment transport study of the Vedder River

2010· article· en· W2278060612 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David G. McLean

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrology (agriculture)Flood controlSediment controlEnvironmental scienceFlood mythSediment transportSedimentGeologyGeographyGeomorphologyGeotechnical engineeringArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Chilliwack River flows through the Cascade Mountains until reaching a narrow gorge near Vedder Crossing where it flows onto the Fraser Lowlands and eventually meets the Fraser River. Below Vedder Crossing, the river is actively building an alluvial fan by depositing its sediment load of gravel and sand. This deposition has resulted in frequent channel shifts over the fan surface with the most recent migration occurring around 1894 when the river shifted down Vedder Creek. Over the last century the Vedder River has been undergoing very complex changes in response to changes in the incidence of severe floods, changes in sediment supply and interference from river training. Extensive channelization works carried out in the 1960's induced temporary degradation over part of the channel which was accompanied by rapid aggradation in the reach immediately downstream. This rapid channel adjustment ceased in less than 10 years. In 1975 a flood having a return period of about 10 years deposited 260,000 cubic yards of sediment onto the fan which increased the mean bedlevel by nearly 1 foot. By comparison, the average annual deposition rate was estimated to be 72,000 cubic yards per year. Based on bedload transport calculations, approximately 700,000 cubic yards of sediment could be deposited by a 50 year rainstorm flood. In order to provide long term flood control, either the upstream sediment supply will have to be reduced or dredging will have to be carried out on the lower river. It is not feasible to eliminate aggradation by transporting the incoming bedload through the system and into the Fraser River. Some strategies are considered which, by controlled dredging and training would maintain the channel permanently in its present position. More severe floods would be contained by set-back dikes. It is thought that, with care, these measures could be consistent with salmon habitat requirements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.150
Teacher spread0.147 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207