Morphometric analysis in the sub basins of the Kali River using Geographic Information System, Karnataka, India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Morphometric analysis serves as a crucial tool for quantitatively characterizing drainage basins and exploring the intricate relationships between hydraulic parameters and geomorphological characteristics. This study presents a comprehensive morphometric analysis of the Kali Subbasin in Karnataka, covering an area of 1175.45 km². Utilizing remote sensing data and GIS tools, we quantified various morphometric parameters, including stream order, stream length, bifurcation ratio, drainage density, stream frequency, form factor, and circularity ratio, to understand the basin's geomorphological and hydrological characteristics. The study area is classified as a seventh-order basin displaying a dendritic drainage pattern with a drainage density of 2.853 km/km². Notably, the bifurcation ratio ranges from 4.396 to 3, indicating low to moderate structural control within the basin. The subbasin's elongated shape, with an elongation ratio of 0.604 and a circularity ratio of 0.298, indicates moderate peak flow and high susceptibility to erosion. Relief parameters showed significant elevation variations, contributing to intense erosion and heightened flood risks in lower-lying areas. The study identifies the basin's transition to a mature geomorphic stage, evidenced by an escalating stream length ratio from lower to higher orders. These findings underscore the importance of tailored watershed management strategies, including floodplain zoning, retention basins, afforestation, and terracing, to mitigate flooding and soil erosion. The study's insights are crucial for developing effective, localized water resource management plans and enhancing the resilience of the Kali Subbasin to future hydrological challenges. • Determination of one, two, and three-dimensional morphometric parameters. • Determination and evaluation of morphometric parameters using Geographic Information System. • Calculation of linear, areal, and relief characteristics of the drainage basin. • Understanding the importance of values of the parameters determined and how it affect the landform characteristics.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".