Formation of point bars through rising and falling flood stages: Evidence from bar morphology, sediment transport and bed shear stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Flow processes and sediment transport in a channel bend and associated point bar have been studied in modern rivers, theoretical models and physical experiments: however, the relationship between flow process and point‐bar morphology has rarely been explained due to the complex nature of open channel flow. Plan‐view exposures of an ancient point‐bar complex, exposed at the top of the Cretaceous Ferron Sandstone Member of the Mancos Shale Formation, south‐central Utah, allowed reconstruction of bar morphology, sediment transport and bed shear stress, which were used to extrapolate flow processes. Studies of these outcrops show that compound point bars and scroll bars were probably formed during falling and rising flood stages, respectively. A simulation model of plan‐view channel form shows that channel dimensions, such as radius of curvature and sinuosity of the point‐bar complex, range between 205 m and 351 m and 1·04 and 1·22, respectively, throughout the evolution of the channel bend. Variations in strength of the helical flow were interpreted as the main control on facies architecture and bar morphology. Strong helical flow was related to the deposition of the scroll bars, while strength of helical flow is decreased for compound bars. The use of cross‐beds as a common palaeocurrent indicator was found to be inconsistent with mean flow directions and channel margin orientation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".