MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367595465 · doi:10.1029/2022gl101919

How Fast or How Many? Sources of Intermittent Sediment Transport

2023· article· en· W4367595465 on OpenAlexaff
Santiago Benavides, Eric Deal, Jeremy G. Venditti, R. W. Bradley, Qiong Zhang, Ken Kamrin, J. Taylor Perron

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsBC Hydro (Canada)Simon Fraser University
FundersDEVCOM Army Research LaboratoryNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsIntermittencyFlumeFlux (metallurgy)SedimentSediment transportGrain sizeGeologyMagnitude (astronomy)Soil scienceEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesHydrology (agriculture)GeomorphologyMechanicsPhysicsGeotechnical engineeringTurbulenceFlow (mathematics)Materials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Near the threshold of grain motion, sediment transport is “on‐off” intermittent, characterized by large but rare bursts separated by long periods of low transport. Without models that can account for the effects of intermittency, measurements of average sediment flux can be in error by up to an order of magnitude. Despite its known presence and impact, it is not clear whether on‐off intermittency arises from the grain activity (the number of moving grains) or grain velocities, which together determine the sediment flux. We use laboratory flume experiments to show that the on‐off intermittency has its origins in the velocity distributions of grains that move by rolling along the bed, whereas grain activity is not on‐off intermittent. Incorporating the types of intermittency we identify into stochastic models of sediment transport could yield improved predictions of sediment flux, including physically based estimates of the uncertainty in time‐averaged sediment flux.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207