You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We cannot naively "turn on fragmentation." The model has a fragmentation(g)
process (constant per-km rate; currently always off), but enabling it as-is is
both physically wrong and partly unidentifiable. The near-source component of
fragmentation is already absorbed by the fitted source size D0 (see #1). This
issue is to build the part that is identifiable and physical.
What is identifiable: distributed, shear-gated fragmentation
Fragmentation is a distinct, fittable process only if it is distributed along
the transport path — count growing / size shrinking with distance beyond what
abrasion explains (a flat-everywhere D0 cannot mimic this). The flume data say
it is:
shear-threshold-like — ≈0 at 52 Pa (small flume), present at ~268 Pa (large
flume); not a clean power law; and
angularity-controlled — angular pebbles fragment, well-rounded ones do not.
So the physical parameterization is g active only where local shear τ(x) > τ_crit (the steep, high-energy upper reaches) and off downstream as clasts
round and τ drops.
Sequencing / preconditions
This is deliberately not next. Build only after, in order:
Establish that distributed fragmentation actually happens. A go/no-go
diagnostic: is there a downstream distance signature in count/size beyond what
abrasion + D0 already explain? If the residuals show no distance-distributed
fragmentation, there is nothing here to build — D0 (Document model identifiability: near-source fragmentation is already captured by D0 #1) is the whole story.
Only if (2) is positive, build it — and it must manage real hydraulics:
a per-reach shear field τ(x) along source→site paths (slope × depth via the
hydraulics module, over the channel network), with a τ_crit prior bracketed by
the flume 52 Pa (off) / 268 Pa (on).
Proposed work (once unblocked)
Design a non-degenerate, shear-gated parameterization: g(τ(x)) switching on
above τ_crit.
Flume g-prior extraction: per-lithology fragmentation magnitude from the
"fragment-inclusive minus abrasion-only" mass difference (granite ≈ 0; angular
vs. rounded handling documented).
Synthetic identifiability tests: confirm shear-gated g is recoverable
jointly with D0 / production / abrasion given the count + size channels and a
spatial shear field — and document the regimes where it is not.
Integrate with the per-reach shear field.
Dependency (blocked)
Needs the per-reach shear field τ(x) (real hydraulics over the channel
network) — the transport-path / channel-network effort. Until then, fragmentation
stays off and its near-source component lives in D0 (#1).
Motivation
We cannot naively "turn on fragmentation." The model has a
fragmentation(g)process (constant per-km rate; currently always off), but enabling it as-is is
both physically wrong and partly unidentifiable. The near-source component of
fragmentation is already absorbed by the fitted source size
D0(see #1). Thisissue is to build the part that is identifiable and physical.
What is identifiable: distributed, shear-gated fragmentation
Fragmentation is a distinct, fittable process only if it is distributed along
the transport path — count growing / size shrinking with distance beyond what
abrasion explains (a flat-everywhere
D0cannot mimic this). The flume data sayit is:
flume); not a clean power law; and
So the physical parameterization is
gactive only where local shearτ(x) > τ_crit(the steep, high-energy upper reaches) and off downstream as clastsround and
τdrops.Sequencing / preconditions
This is deliberately not next. Build only after, in order:
D0/ near-source identifiability documentation.diagnostic: is there a downstream distance signature in count/size beyond what
abrasion +
D0already explain? If the residuals show no distance-distributedfragmentation, there is nothing here to build —
D0(Document model identifiability: near-source fragmentation is already captured by D0 #1) is the whole story.a per-reach shear field
τ(x)along source→site paths (slope × depth via thehydraulics module, over the channel network), with a
τ_critprior bracketed bythe flume 52 Pa (off) / 268 Pa (on).
Proposed work (once unblocked)
g(τ(x))switching onabove
τ_crit.g-prior extraction: per-lithology fragmentation magnitude from the"fragment-inclusive minus abrasion-only" mass difference (granite ≈ 0; angular
vs. rounded handling documented).
gis recoverablejointly with
D0/ production / abrasion given the count + size channels and aspatial shear field — and document the regimes where it is not.
Dependency (blocked)
Needs the per-reach shear field
τ(x)(real hydraulics over the channelnetwork) — the transport-path / channel-network effort. Until then, fragmentation
stays off and its near-source component lives in
D0(#1).Relationship
🤖 Generated with Claude Code