Rock Control of River Geometry: The Fraser Canyons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A 524‐km reach of Fraser River, British Columbia, was traversed, where the channel alternates between gravel‐bedded reaches that are incised into semiconsolidated glacial deposits and bedrock‐bound reaches, including Fraser Canyon. Continuous centerline acoustic Doppler current profiler survey and observations of bedrock confinement, supplemented with measurements on air photos, reveal the influence of bedrock on channel properties. The surveyed reach was subdivided into 10 morphological reaches, ranging from dominance by alluvial gravel‐bed channels to dominantly rock‐walled canyons. Measured data were grouped within each reach based on the presence of bedrock on both banks, one bank, or neither bank. From alluvial to mixed to canyon‐dominated reaches, river widths decreased while water depths, flow velocities, water surface slopes, and bed shear stresses increased. Within reaches, subreaches with bedrock on both banks were narrower and deeper with higher bed shear stresses but, at the observed stage, had lower depth‐averaged velocity and water surface slope than partly confined and alluvial (unconfined) subreaches. A conceptual model is presented representing a bedrock river as an alternating series of relatively low gradient, deep, rock‐walled pools and steep semialluvial or alluvial sections. Downstream hydraulic geometry relations have scaling exponents expected for alluvial channels provided that the alluvial and rock‐influenced sections are analyzed separately. In Fraser River, canyons become relatively narrower downstream, apparently in response to increasing rock uplift during the Quaternary period. The observations are compared against prior semitheoretical frameworks established to explain variations in width, slope, and channel shape along rockbound channels.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".