Transport Scaling of Dune Dimensions in Shallow Flows
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
Abstract Dune dimensions in sand‐bedded rivers are often thought to scale with flow depth ( h ), with height ( H ) scaling as 1/6 h and length ( L ) as 5 h , even though substantial scatter about the relations has been observed. Transport stage has been shown to affect bedform geometry, but this control is often ignored in favor of depth scaling relations. Here, we use a series of flume experiments to systematically test controls on dune dimensions and variability. Experiments involved three sets of runs under five constant transport stages, ranging threshold to washout conditions, at three different flow depths. The mobile bed was repeatedly scanned during a 10‐hr equilibrium period to derive mean values and quantify the variability. The results show that dune‐depth scaling is not consistent because of a transport stage effect. Dune height increases with transport stage until a point when H decreases. Length remains nearly constant with transport stage until further increases in transport stage leads to lengthening. In general, dunes grow higher when significant bedload transport occurs but become flatter and longer in the presence of substantial suspension. Ultimately, dunes scale with transport stage, which is a function of slope, grain size, and h . The results are used to derive transport stage relations to guide predictions of dune dimensions in rivers and reconstructions of paleoflows based on dimensions estimated from cross strata. The relations incorporate the nonlinear response of dune dimensions with transport stage and provide metrics of uncertainty to include in predictions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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