Quantitative analysis of variations in depositional sequence thickness from submarine channel levees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Thickness variations across‐levee and downchannel in acoustically defined depositional sequences from six submarine channel‐levee systems show consistent and quantifiable patterns. The thickness of depositional sequences perpendicular to the channel trend, i.e. across the levee, decreases exponentially, as characterized by a spatial decay constant, k. Similarly, the thickness of sediment at the levee crest decreases exponentially down the upper reaches of submarine channels and can be characterized by a second spatial decay constant, λ. The inverse of these decay constants has units of length and defines depositional length scales such that k−1 is a measure of levee width and λ−1 is a measure of levee length. Quantification of levee architecture in this way allowed investigation of relationships between levee architecture and channel dimensions. It was found that these measures of levee e‐folding width and levee e‐folding length are directly related to channel width and relief. The dimensions of channels and levees are thus intimately related, thereby limiting the range of potential channel‐levee morphologies, regardless of allocyclic forcing. A simple sediment budget model relates the product of the levee e‐folding width and e‐folding length to through‐channel volume discharge. A classification system based on the quantitative downchannel behaviour of levee architecture allows identification of a ‘mid‐channel’ reach, where sediment is passively transferred from the through‐channel flow to the levees as an overspilling flow. Downstream from this reach, the channel gradually looses its control on guiding turbidity currents, and the resulting flow can be considered as an unconfined or spreading flow.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".