Fluvial Erosion Rate of Cohesive Streambanks Is Directly Related to the Difference in Soil and Water Temperatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".