Interactions between alluvial fans and axial rivers in Yukon, Canada and Alaska, USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In contrast with the archetypal definition of an alluvial fan, this study shows that fans interacting with axial rivers in Yukon and Alaska commonly exhibit asymmetrical morphology in planform. Hypothesis tests relating to the geomorphological characteristics of these alluvial fans were conducted on a dataset of 63 fluvial-dominated fans. A significant relationship existed between fan asymmetry and the direction of axial river flow, which was attributed to two factors supported by examples: (1) axial rivers have a propensity to trim the toes on the up-valley sides of fans; and (2) axial river channels are deflected across the broad valley floors, which allows the profiles on the down-valley sides of fans to be longer than on the up-valley sides. However, an asymmetrical planform morphology does not lead to a significant bias in the spatial distribution of surface streams towards the up-valley sides of fans, which typically have shorter profiles from apex to boundary. If the asymmetry in fan morphology is preserved in the sedimentary record, then the interpretation of fan deposits that developed in broad valleys and that interacted with axial rivers would be improved by understanding this modern analogue.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".