MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1889994824 · doi:10.1139/e2012-052

Patterns and mechanisms of fluvial sediment flux and accumulation in two subarctic fjords: Nachvak and Saglek Fjords, Nunatsiavut, Canada

2012· article· en· W1889994824 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Samuel J. Bentley, Elisabeth Kahlmeyer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsFjordGeologySedimentSedimentary rockFluvialGlacierSubarctic climateSedimentary depositional environmentOceanographySedimentationStructural basinSediment transportGeomorphologyGeochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent marine sedimentary deposits and river discharge in two subarctic fjords in Nunatsiavut (Northern Labrador, Canada) have been studied to elucidate patterns and mechanisms of fluvial sediment transfer and accumulation in the fjords, to further our understanding of the longer-term sedimentary record. Multibeam and sub-bottom acoustic data and sediment cores were collected in Nachvak and Saglek fjords, within Canada’s Torngat Mountains National Park, as part of the most extensive study of the park’s marine resources to date. Cores were subsampled for X-radiography, grain size, and 210 Pb/ 137 Cs geochronology. Muddy basin sediments within each fjord are bioturbated, indicating circulation of oxygenated bottom water. Depositional fluxes and inventories of 210 Pb indicate efficient marine scavenging of 210 Pb by fine suspended sediments. In Nachvak Fjord, with small rivers and steep, presently glaciated catchments, postglacial and recent sediment accumulation rates are similar, implying relatively constant sedimentation over time. In Saglek Fjord, fed by larger rivers with more extensive catchments that lack glaciers, recent sediment accumulation is more rapid than that averaged over postglacial time. Present mass accumulation rates for the Nachvak Fjord basin are on average 39 000 t·year –1 for the entire basin, and for Saglek 43 000 t·year –1 for the entire basin, with sediment-gravity flows being one likely mechanism for sediment delivery to deep basins. Results collectively suggest that both marine basins are excellent natural sediment traps. Comparison of accumulation rates from 137 Cs and 210 Pb suggest that sediment fluxes to Nachvak Fjord may have decreased slightly over the past ∼130 years.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207