Modeling the planform evolution of confined meandering rivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of lateral planimetric constraints preventing free migration and avulsion has a significant influence on the planform dynamics of river meanders. This particular confined kind of meandering rivers is definitely understudied, especially in comparison to freely migrating ones. Through a semi-analytical meander model, here we attempt to investigate the effect of the confined floodplain width through a morphodynamic modeling approach. The confined floodplain width is defined as the width between symmetric lateral confinement where the river is free to migrate, on the planform pattern and dynamics. Model results illustrate that weak confinement (i.e. loose floodplain boundaries) increases planform irregularity, with the river centerline preferentially lying close to floodplain boundaries, while strong confinement (tight floodplain boundaries) leads to a remarkable planform regularity, constituted by periodic sequences of sawtooth-shaped meanders. Bend orientation is reminiscent of the sub/super-resonant regime regardless of the confinement width. Model results are supported by good agreement with available field and remote sensing observation on selected case studies of confined meandering rivers in Canada previously studied by Nicoll and Hickin (2014).
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".