MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606036591 · doi:10.1002/esp.4165

Interpreting sediment yield scaling

2017· article· en· W2606036591 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Church

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Surface Processes and Landforms · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil erosion and sediment transport
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedimentScalingHomogeneousHydrology (agriculture)Yield (engineering)Environmental scienceDrainageScale (ratio)GeologySoil scienceMathematicsGeotechnical engineeringGeomorphologyEcologyGeographyGeometryCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Terrestrial sediment yield – often measured as suspended sediment load in stream channels – commonly scales with drainage area within homogeneous land surface regions. But the effect of drainage area has not usually been recognized in comparative sediment yield analyses, rendering most comparisons of sediment yield from disparate source areas invalid. The procedure to discount scale differences for comparative purposes is presented. Mathematical scaling varies according to landscape condition and provides a physical interpretation of that condition. The results open the way for rational construction of a ‘sediment delivery ratio’. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth Surface Processes and LandformsSame topicSoil erosion and sediment transportFrench-language works237,207