Supply‐limited bedform patterns and scaling downstream of a gravel–sand transition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A distinct suite of sand bedforms has been observed to occur in laboratory flows with limited sand supply. As sand supply to the bed progressively increases one observes sand ribbons, discrete barchans and, eventually, channel spanning dunes; but there are relatively few observations of this sequence from natural river channels. Furthermore, there are few observations of transitions from limited sand supply to abundant supply in the field. Bedforms developed under limited, but increasing, sand supply downstream of the abrupt gravel–sand transition in the Fraser River, British Columbia, are examined using multi‐beam swath‐bathymetry obtained at high flow. This is an ideal location to study supply‐limited bedforms because, due to a break in river slope, sand transitions from washload upstream of the gravel–sand transition to bed material load downstream. Immediately downstream, barchanoid and isolated dunes are observed. Most of the bedform field has gaps in the troughs, consistent with sand moving over a flat immobile or weakly mobile gravel bed. Linear, alongstream bedform fields (trains of transverse dunes formed on locally thick, linear deposits of sand) exhibit characteristics of sand ribbons with superimposed bedforms. Further downstream, channel spanning dunes develop where the bed is composed entirely of sand. Depth scaling of the dunes does not emerge in this data set. Only where the channel has accumulated abundant sand on the bed do the dunes exhibit scaling congruent with previous data compilations. The observations suggest that sediment supply plays an important, but often overlooked, role in bedform scaling in rivers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".