Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last few decades, a suite of numerical models has been developed for studying river history and evolution that is almost as diverse as the subject of river history itself. A distinction can be made between landscape evolution models (LEMs), alluvial architecture models, meander models, cellular models and computational fluid dynamics models. Although these models share some similarities, there also are notable differences between them, which make them more or less suitable for simulating particular aspects of river history and evolution. LEMs embrace entire drainage basins at the price of detail; alluvial architecture models simulate sedimentary facies but oversimplify flow characteristics; and computational fluid dynamics models have to assume a fixed channel form. While all these models have helped us to predict erosion and depositional processes as well as fluvial landscape evolution, some areas of prediction are likely to remain limited and short-term owing to the often nonlinear response of fluvial systems. Nevertheless, progress in model algorithms, computing and field data capture will lead to greater integration between these approaches and thus the ability to interpret river history more comprehensively.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it