Covariation in width and depth in bedrock rivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The width and depth of rivers are generally inversely related. For a given discharge, wider rivers tend to be shallower than narrower rivers, which are correspondingly deeper. This is particularly true in bedrock and mixed bedrock–alluvial channels, where deep pools occur downstream of lateral constrictions, downstream of which the channel becomes wider and shallower. However, covariation of width and depth in bedrock and mixed bedrock–alluvial rivers has never been explored due to the lack of field measurements. Here we present a 375 km survey of width and depth measurements in the Fraser Canyon, British Columbia, which alternates irregularly among alluvial (no bedrock exposed on either bank), bedrock‐constrained (bedrock exposed on one bank), and bedrock‐bound (bedrock exposed on both banks) sections. We find that bedrock‐bound reaches have the deepest and narrowest sections, followed by bedrock‐constrained reaches and alluvial reaches, which feature the shallowest and widest sections of channel. There is an inverse relation between width and depth for all the channels, with alluvial channels having the highest correlation between these two variables, and thus the greatest covariance. We further explore the relation between width and depth and the downstream hydraulic geometry of 42 individual bedrock‐bound canyons. There is an inverse relation between canyon width and depth, with substantial variation within individual canyons. The downstream hydraulic geometry for these bedrock‐bound canyons does not follow that typical of alluvial channels; depth is the only variable that adjusts substantially as a response to increasing discharge and upstream basin area.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".