Morphometry of Tidal Meander Cutoffs Indicates Similarity to Fluvial Morphodynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sinuous channels wandering through coastal wetlands have been thought to lack lateral‐migration features like meander cutoffs and oxbows, spurring the broad interpretation that tidal and fluvial meanders differ morphodynamically. Motivated by recent work showing similarities in planform dynamics between tidal and fluvial meandering channels, we analyzed meander neck cutoffs from diverse tidal and fluvial environments worldwide, and show that tidal cutoffs are widespread. Their perceived paucity stems from pronounced channel density and hydrological connectivity in coastal wetlands, comparatively small size of most tidal channels, and typically dense vegetation cover. Although these factors do not efface tidal meander cutoffs, they collectively inhibit oxbow formation and make tidal cutoffs ephemeral features that can escape detection. We argue that similar morphodynamic processes drive cutoff formation in tidal and fluvial landscapes, with differences arising only during post‐cutoff evolution. Such process similarity has important implications for understanding coastal wetland ecomorphodynamics and predicting their long‐term evolution.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".