Study of a Steady-State Landscape Using Remote Sensing and Topographic Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current limited approaches to calculating hillslope erosion rate hamper the study of the relationships among the rates of hillslope erosion, river incision, and tectonic uplift and hence the discussion of steady-state landscape evolution. In this paper, we use remote sensing and geochronological methods to calculate the upper and lower bounding hillslope erosion rates in the Qilian Shan range, Tibet. Our analysis focuses on five convex landslide sediment units derived from the weathered hillslopes at Qingyang Mountain on the tectonically active northeastern Tibetan Plateau. These sediment units range in thickness from 5.5 to 12.8 m and in volume from 119 × 103 to 260 × 103 m3. Based on field observations, measurements extracted from high-resolution DEMs, and optical stimulated luminescence (OSL) ages on fluvial terraces, we obtain lower and upper bounding rates of 0.13 ± 0.03 and 0.21 ± 0.04 mm/yr, respectively. Finally, we calculate incision rates, ranging from 0.21 ± 0.02 to 0.39 ± 0.01 mm/yr, from heights of a dated fluvial terrace above the present river and the time of abandonment of the associated bedrock strath estimated from OSL ages. The rates of hillslope erosion and river incision at Qingyang Mountain and the tectonic uplift of the Qilian Mountains are estimated to be within a factor of two over the past 117 ka, suggesting that a state of dynamic equilibrium has likely existed on this timescale.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".