Are Results in Geomorphology Reproducible?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There recently has arisen substantial concern for the reproducibility of scientific findings, but the discussion has not significantly impacted Earth science. We consider repetition, replication, and reproducibility in Earth science, using an example from geomorphology. Repetition repeats the program of observations in the same exercise to establish precision of results. Replication is duplication of observations using similar resources but in an independent program. Reproduction is confirmation of scientific principles using different resources in an independent program. We conclude that results will mainly be limited to reproduction—confirmation of principles—and that this is the essential goal for advancing the science. We illustrate these concepts by review of our experiments on the infiltration of fine grains in flowing water into a bed of coarser grains, conducted using glass beads in a laboratory flume.
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 | 0.411 | 0.650 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".