Mechanisms for avulsion on alluvial fans: Insights from high‐frequency topographic data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Avulsion is a key process in building alluvial fans, but it is also a formidable natural hazard. Based on laboratory experiments monitored with novel high‐frequency photogrammetry, we present a new model for avulsion on widely graded gravel fans. Previous experimental studies of alluvial fans have suggested that avulsion occurs in a periodic autogenic cycle, that is thought to be mediated by the gradient of the fan and fan‐channel. However, those studies measured gradients at low spatial or temporal resolutions, which capture temporally or spatially averaged topographic evolution. Here, we present high‐resolution (1 mm), high‐frequency (1‐minute) topographic data and orthophotos from an alluvial fan experiment. Avulsions in the experiment were rapid and, in contrast to some previous experimental studies, avulsion occurrence was aperiodic. Moreover, we found little evidence of the back‐filling observed at coarser temporal and spatial resolutions. Our observations suggest that avulsion is disproportionately affected by sediment accumulation in the channel, particularly around larger, less mobile grains. Such in‐channel deposition can cause channel shifting that interrupts the autogenic avulsion cycle, so that avulsions are aperiodic and their timing is more difficult to predict.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".