Of sand and mud: Sedimentological criteria for identifying the turbidity maximum zone in a tidally influenced river
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The thickness and lateral distribution of sand and mud beds and bedsets on channel bars from the tidally influenced Fraser River, British Columbia, Canada, are quantitatively assessed. Fifty‐six vibracores totalling ca 114 m of vertical section are used to tabulate bed thicknesses. Statistical calculations are undertaken for nine channel bars ranging from the freshwater and tidal zone, to the sustained brackish water and tidal zone. The data reveal that thickness trends can be organized into three groups that broadly correspond to time‐averaged hydrodynamic and salinity conditions in the various distributary channels. Thick sand beds (up to 30 cm) and thin mud beds (up to 5 cm) characterize the freshwater tidal zone. The tidal and freshwater to brackish‐water transition zone comprises thin sands (up to 10 cm) and thicker muds (up to 19 cm), and the sustained brackish water tidal zone consists of thin muds (up to 6 cm) with relatively thicker sands (up to 25 cm). The results suggest that the locus of mud deposition occurs in the tidal freshwater to brackish‐water zone, probably reflecting mud flocculation and deposition at the turbidity maximum. Landward of the turbidity maximum, mud deposition is linked to tidal influence (tidal backwater effect and reverse eddy currents on channel margins) as mud beds thin in the landward direction. These results support the hypothesis that mud deposition is greatest at the turbidity maximum and decreases in both the seaward and landward direction. This study also showcases that mud‐bed thicknesses are greatest towards the turbidity maximum and thin in both the landward and seaward direction. In the rock record, the apex of mud deposition probably marks the position of the palaeo‐turbidity maximum.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".