Sampling variability in estimates of flow characteristics in coarse‐bed channels: Effects of sample size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adequate description of hydraulic variables based on a sample of field measurements is challenging in coarse‐bed streams, a consequence of high spatial heterogeneity in flow properties that arises due to the complexity of channel boundary. By applying a resampling procedure based on bootstrapping to an extensive field data set, we have estimated sampling variability and its relationship with sample size in relation to two common methods of representing flow characteristics, spatially averaged velocity profiles and fitted probability distributions. The coefficient of variation in bed shear stress and roughness length estimated from spatially averaged velocity profiles and in shape and scale parameters of gamma distribution fitted to local values of bed shear stress, velocity, and depth was high, reaching 15–20% of the parameter value even at the sample size of 100 (sampling density 1 m −2 ). We illustrated implications of these findings with two examples. First, sensitivity analysis of a 2‐D hydrodynamic model to changes in roughness length parameter showed that the sampling variability range observed in our resampling procedure resulted in substantially different frequency distributions and spatial patterns of modeled hydraulic variables. Second, using a bedload formula, we showed that propagation of uncertainty in the parameters of a gamma distribution used to model bed shear stress led to the coefficient of variation in predicted transport rates exceeding 50%. Overall, our findings underscore the importance of reporting the precision of estimated hydraulic parameters. When such estimates serve as input into models, uncertainty propagation should be explicitly accounted for by running ensemble simulations.
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 | 0.036 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".