MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1923816886 · doi:10.1002/esp.3791

Depositional development of the Muskeg Lake crevasse splay in the Cumberland Marshes (Canada)

2015· article· en· W1923816886 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
W.H.J. Toonen, Sanneke van Asselen, Esther Stouthamer, Norman D. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Surface Processes and Landforms · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiteit Utrecht
KeywordsCrevasseGeologyGeomorphologySedimentary depositional environmentLeveeSedimentary structuresStructural basinPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Crevasse splays are common geomorphological features in alluvial and deltaic floodplains. Although crevasse splays can develop into full avulsions, thereby transforming large areas of floodbasins, little is known about their sedimentary and geomorphological development at the decadal scale and their avulsion potential. We used aerial photography and lithological cross‐sections to reconstruct crevasse‐splay formation in the largely unmanaged floodplain of the Saskatchewan River in the Cumberland Marshes (Saskatchewan, Canada). Based on surface geomorphology and subsurface deposits, various stages of crevasse‐splay development were described which were linked to both external forcing and internal morphodynamics. Initial splay deposition, following a levee breach during a large flood, occurred as a broad but relatively thin sandy sheet in a down‐basin direction in the receiving backswamp area. In a next phase, these primary crevasse‐splay deposits blocked local down‐basin flow, thereby forcing the crevasse‐splay channel in a direction perpendicular to the parent channel and original floodbasin gradient. This created an asymmetrical splay sequence composition, which differs in appearance from more commonly observed dendritic crevasse splays. It is concluded that sedimentation patterns in the splay have been influenced by inherited effects of previously formed deposits. Feedbacks of the original floodbasin gradient and earlier stages of splay formation are suggested as prominent mechanisms in creating the current morphology, orientation, and architecture of its deposits. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.000
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 score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth Surface Processes and LandformsSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207