The Origin of Fine Sediment Determines the Observations of Suspended Sediment Fluxes Under Unsteady Flow Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Field observations in a wide range of environments have shown that sediment availability is a major control on the suspended sediment observations in streams. Here we examine, via laboratory experiments, how the amount of proximal in‐channel fine sediment storage relative to the upstream fine sediment distal supply influences the observations of suspended sediment concentrations in streams. Experiments under idealized conditions in a laboratory flume with different ratios of proximal and distal sediment supplies were conducted under a varying flow regime. In addition, the role of the sediment particle size of the supplied sediment on suspended sediment observations was explored. The combinations of proximal and distal sediment supply result in multiple responses of the channel bed and sediment quantity within the channel bed, and the responses adjust through aggradation and degradation. The signature of sediment concentration observed at the upstream section of the channel, given by the distal supply, differs from the downstream observations of the total conveyed sediment (distal and proximal), as shown by an in‐phase analysis of sediment concentration‐discharge plots. Furthermore, we show that nonuniform sediment mixtures may result in a change in the direction of the hysteresis observed between sediment concentration and discharge (i.e., from a clockwise hysteresis to a counterclockwise hysteresis). We also demonstrate that the ratio between sediment distal supply and proximal sediment availability modulates the magnitude of the aggradation/degradation processes in the channel reach and thus the joint observations of sediment concentration and discharge.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".