Longitudinal Fluvial Dispersion of Coarse Particles: Insights From Field Observations and Model Simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, we use field observations augmented with model simulations to examine gravel dispersion over nine years (2007–2015) in Halfmoon Creek. The observations of flow, entrainment, and dispersion were used to develop a forward model utilizing the Einstein‐Hubbell‐Sayre (EHS) compound Poisson process. The observed mean virtual velocity of the tracer population slows down with cumulative excess energy after the 2010 large event. The forward model deviates from the observations in representation of tails, overpredicts mean displacements, and shows a narrower spatial distribution. The heavy‐tailed resting times indicate prolonged immobilization of some grains, suggesting the preferential movement of other most mobile grains. As such, 34% of most mobile grains constitute 50% of the total entrainments. The consideration of preferential movement explains the longitudinal spread but still overpredicts the displacement after the 2010 event. The model was then explored to consider additional transport‐related mechanisms causing deviations, such as reduction in virtual velocity, entrainment probability, and morphological trapping of meander bends, which helps to adequately recreate the observed dispersive behavior. The available historical flow records used for simulating dispersive behavior over multiple decades reveal an abrupt increase in displacements for exceptionally large events, suggesting the exhumation of deeply buried grains back in transport. The simulation results highlight the need for tracer studies with large sample sizes and improved recovery rates for longer time frames experiencing floods of widely varying magnitudes. Such models, inspired by Einstein's stochastic theory can be valuable for various river research applications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".