River meander development by bar-push and bank-pull during cyclic hydrographs in a field-scale experimental channel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under equilibrium conditions, gravel-bed rivers widen and narrow as bar-push and bank-pull wax and wane through individual floods, yet over decades the channel often holds near constant width, evidence of coupling between inner-bank deposition and outer-bank erosion. Because large, event-scale datasets are scarce and most field rivers have mixed grain-size beds, the physics of this coupling remains uncertain. Here we use a unique Outdoor Experimental River Facility (OERF) with sediment recirculation to investigate this coupling in 50 m-long, 3 m-wide sine-generated gravel-bed channel using four identical seven-stage flood hydrographs (129-hr total duration). Twenty-nine drone photogrammetry surveys (i.e., 2 mm digital elevation models) and bedload samples were collected to determine a novel thalweg-centred volumetric framework and analysis that partitions every survey into inner-bank and outer-bank contributions. Flood peaks, though only 3% of the experiment duration, produced 83% of the 52% increase in planform area: centroid migration reached 1.3 m (27% of width) and width-to-depth ratio tripled (from 40 to 120). At peaks, bank-pull dominated 50% of events and bar-push 40%, whereas during rising and falling limbs symmetric widening prevailed (41%) with bar-push still active (31%). Local context modulated these stage effects: under identical forcing, one bend damped toward medium-stability balance that approached a steady but non-zero imbalance, a mid-reach bend reached high stability, and an outlet-proximal bend diverged into low-stability widening. We conclude that in gravel channels the bar-push/bank-pull is both stage-dependent and bend-specific; short peaks set the trajectory, but sub-bankfull limbs are responsible for most of the in-channel geomorphic work.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".