Floods on alluvial fans: implications for reworking rates, morphology and fan hazards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flood events are the agents of change on alluvial fans. However, most alluvial fan experiments have used constant flows to model fans and the channels upon them. Here, we present results from a series of alluvial fan experiments with different patterns of flow variation (i.e. different hydrograph shapes). We conducted experiments with 1) constant flow, 2) alternating high and low flows, 3) a moderate flood peak that decayed slowly, alternating with a constant low flow, and 4) a high flood peak that decayed rapidly, alternating with a constant low flow. Importantly, all experiments had the same mean flow and sediment supply, but the different hydrographs generated fans with different slopes. In addition, higher peak flows led to increased lateral migration rates and increased erosion and deposition. These results challenge the notion that a single representative flow can be used to approximate the geomorphic effects of a range of flows in a natural stream. Moreover, the data suggest that hydrograph shape can govern the geomorphic impact of a flood event. Our findings indicate how altered basin hydrology (for instance, through changes to land cover) could influence geomorphic change and natural hazards on alluvial fans.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".