MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396902595 · doi:10.1002/esp.5875

What controls river widening? Comparing large and extreme flood events

2024· article· en· W4396902595 on OpenAlexaffabout
S. L. Davidson, Blanca Marin‐Esteve, Brett Eaton

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Surface Processes and Landforms · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsBGC Engineering (Canada)University of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythHydrology (agriculture)GeologyEnvironmental sciencePhysical geographyGeographyArchaeologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Extreme (i.e., centennial‐scale) floods are by definition rare and can therefore be difficult to study. As a result, case studies of response to extreme floods can provide unique insights. On 15 November 2021, the Nicola River in British Columbia, Canada, experienced a 200‐year flood that increased the average width of the Nicola River by more than 50% (35 m), leaving the only highway in the region impassable for nearly 12 months. This research assesses the spatial variability of erosion along a 71‐km‐long segment of the Nicola River during a period with a large flood (2015–2018) and a second period containing the extreme flood in 2021 (2018–2021). We use a random forest statistical analysis to explore the most important valley and channel characteristics affecting relative widening during both periods. Unit stream power, gradient and valley confinement were the primary determinants of erosion during the extreme flood, whereas vegetation cover, channel pattern and surficial material were less important. Erosion during the large flood event was not related to these variables, with channel pattern providing a better indication of widening potential. As the Nicola River is flanked by erodible glacial deposits, this work provides important insight into river response in the paraglacial environments that are common throughout much of Canada and the northern United States, as well as Europe and Asia, but less intensely studied. In these settings, the geomorphic response to large floods may not be representative of the potential erosion (and infrastructure impacts) that can occur during extreme events, which destabilize glacial terraces in confined reaches. Historical observations should therefore be used with caution in paraglacial settings as extreme events may not be captured in available data, creating a perception of stability in confined reaches that may have the potential to erode dramatically during extreme events.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth Surface Processes and LandformsSame topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207