MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4232333973 · doi:10.31223/osf.io/9f2px

High curvatures drive river meandering

2017· preprint· en· W4232333973 on OpenAlexaff
Zoltán Sylvester, Jacob A. Covault, Paul R. Durkin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin
KeywordsCurvatureGeologyRadius of curvatureLagGeometryRADIUSGeomorphologyMathematicsMean curvatureMean curvature flowComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the long- and widely held ideas about the dynamics of meanderingrivers is that migration slows down in bends with higher curvatures.Identifying the radius of curvature at which migration is fastest isstandard practice in field studies of meandering rivers. High-resolutionmeasurements of local migration rates in time-lapse Landsat images fromtwo rapidly migrating rivers in the Amazon Basin suggest that thevariation of migration rate closely follows that of the local curvature,with a roughly constant phase lag between the two; and a quasi-linearrelationship exists between curvature and migration rate if this lag istaken into account. A simple numerical model of meandering illustratesthe link between curvature and migration rate and reproducesobservations from the studied rivers. The implication is that meanderingrivers migrate fastest at, and slightly downstream of, locations ofhigh curvature; and one of the most important ways river migration isrejuvenated and meandering patterns are reshuffled is the generation ofhigh-curvature bends through cutoffs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes→French-language works237,207→