Underlying data for "Mechanisms of Dune Growth and Decay in Rivers" submitted to Geophysical Research Letters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This data set includes information needed to understand, evaluate, and build upon the manuscript "Mechanisms of Dune Growth and Decay in Rivers". The included bathymetric surveys show how dunes grow and decay through the 2012 flood in the Fraser river. Dunes grow as flood levels increase by amalgamating with smaller dunes once a flow threshold is passed. After amalgamation, changes to individual dunes are subtler and likely driven by changes to the flow field. As the flood recedes, smaller features appear on the backs of big dunes, reworking and flattening the bed. Small dunes on the backs of big dunes may be a signature of dune decay. Analysis of gauge data from Water Survey of Canada and the Canadian Hydrographic Survey, included here, show that growth by amalgamation and decay by secondary features occur at a common flow threshold. The results can be used to improve how we model floods and interpret fossilized dunes in the rock record on Earth and other planetary surfaces.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.041 |
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".