MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980965978 · doi:10.2134/jeq2018.10.0385

Fluvial Erosion Rate of Cohesive Streambanks Is Directly Related to the Difference in Soil and Water Temperatures

2019· article· en· W2980965978 on OpenAlexaff
Akinrotimi Idowu Akinola, Theresa Wynn‐Thompson, C. Guney Olgun, Saied Mostaghimi, Matthew J. Eick

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Quality · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil erosion and sediment transport
Canadian institutionsDurham College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoil waterErosionEnvironmental scienceFlumeSurface runoffWater contentSoil scienceHydrology (agriculture)Geotechnical engineeringGeologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite decades of research in the field of cohesive soil scour, a major challenge in water resource engineering is an understanding of the fundamental processes governing the erosion of cohesive streambank soils. Given that cohesive soil erodibility is affected by many factors simultaneously, it is necessary to study these factors independently to obtain insights into the erosion process. Three natural soils with different mineralogies were chosen for this study: montmorillonite‐dominated fat clay, vermiculite‐dominated lean clay, and kaolinite‐ and illite‐dominated silty sand. The soils were remolded at maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents and subjected to 15‐min erosion tests in a laboratory flume. Erosion tests were performed at water temperatures of 15 and 25°C and corresponding soil temperatures of 0, 15, and 25°C, and 15, 25, and 40°C. Test results show that, irrespective of soil type, erosion rate increased with an increase in water temperature but decreased with an increase in soil temperature. When soil and water temperatures were equal, there was no significant change in erosion rate (α = 0.05). Further analyses showed that, irrespective of soil type, erosion rate was a function of the difference in soil and water temperatures and not either temperature alone, indicating that the important thermal factor in the erosion process was the difference in soil and water temperatures. These results show the importance of accounting for soil and water temperatures in erosion studies and suggest that the use of stormwater control measures to control runoff temperatures may be necessary to combat streambank degradation resulting from urbanization. Core Ideas Fluvial erosion of cohesive streambanks is affected by soil and water temperatures. Soil and water temperatures have a coactive effect on cohesive streambank erosion. Increases in stream temperature increase fluvial erosion rates of cohesive banks. Increased streambank temperature reduces fluvial erosion rates of cohesive soils. Urban stormwater runoff temperatures should be reduced to maintain channel stability.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental QualitySame topicSoil erosion and sediment transportFrench-language works237,207