MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6961119489 · doi:10.14288/1.0099741

Hydraulic geometry of secondary channels of lower Fraser River, British Columbia, from acoustic Doppler velocimetry

2009· article· en· W6961119489 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcoustic Doppler current profilerHydraulicsChannel (broadcasting)Acoustic Doppler velocimetryScalingDoppler effectCurrent (fluid)Flow velocityVelocimetry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hydraulics and morphology of secondary channels within the lower Fraser River gravel reach have been examined using data collected during the 2002 freshet utilising an acoustic Doppler current profiler with integrated GPS. A range of sub-reach types was sampled, corresponding to position within an individual secondary channel. Surface and sub-surface grain size distribution data were collected as well. Sub-reach averaged water surface width, mean hydraulic depth and mean velocity data generally conformed well (R2 > 0.9) to the form of classical at-a-station hydraulic geometry relations, at higher flow. Spatial and frequency distributions of near-bottom velocity and channel depth were examined. In general, sub-reach types stratified along gradients of width, depth, velocity and sedimentology, although there were exceptions. Additional data collected at high flow were used to generate bankfull scaling relations for secondary channels in the gravel reach. Again, the data conform well to a simple power law, up to and including data points from the main channel. The water surface width to discharge relation agrees with work by Bray (1973) in Alberta gravel bed rivers and with the more general trend of a one-half power relation. However, the mean hydraulic depth to discharge relation (and by continuity, the mean velocity to discharge relation) deviate from previous results. Data collection in the field was somewhat facilitated by the use of the acoustic Doppler current profiler but post-processing time requirements were high and, ultimately, the operating frequency led to certain sampling problems. Issues surrounding the use of these instruments in river channels are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicBotanical Research and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207