Meandering Morphodynamics: Insights from Laboratory and Numerical Experiments and Beyond
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
This paper, written to mark the 60th anniversary of the Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, focuses on the nature of meandering flow and its coupling to bed and bank deformation. An outline of the present understanding of the kinematics of meandering flow and how the flow shapes the bed, with a view towards the conditions in real alluvial meandering rivers, is presented. The flow and its interaction with the bed are analyzed by treating separately the effects on the flow of channel curvature and streamwise variation of channel curvature and by considering the results of numerous laboratory and numerical experiments carried out to date. The approach is used to explain essential differences in meandering bed topography exhibited by streams with varying values of sinuosity and width-to-depth ratio. The paper is also used as an opportunity to address the question of why, in the absence of geological constraints, some streams tend to remain regular in plan shape (i.e., symmetric in plan view with regard to the axis of bend) even when their loops actively expand laterally, whereas others acquire irregular plan shapes. This question is considered in view of the intrinsically different mechanics of bed deformation and bank erosion and a new experiment on bank erosion. The paper suggests that differences in the erodibility of the bed and banks may be a significant contributing factor to the planimetric fate of the stream.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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