MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The hydrodynamic and sedimentary setting of nearshore coral reefs, central Great Barrier Reef shelf, Australia: Paluma Shoals, a case study

2001· article· en· W1988368610 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSedimentology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJames Cook University
KeywordsReefTerrigenous sedimentShoalGeologyOceanographyFringing reefTurbidity currentCoralCoral reefTurbiditySedimentary rockSubmarine pipelineGeomorphologyGeochemistryStructural basinSedimentary depositional environment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) shelf contains a range of coral reefs on the highly turbid shallow inner shelf, where interaction occurs with terrigenous sediments. The modern hydrodynamic and sedimentation regimes at Paluma Shoals, a shore‐attached ‘turbid‐zone’ coral reef, and at Phillips Reef, a fringing reef located 20 km offshore, have been studied to document the mechanisms controlling turbidity. At each reef, waves, currents and near‐bed turbidity were measured for a period of ≈1 month. Bed sediments were sampled at 135 sites. On the inner shelf, muddy sands are widespread, with admixed terrigenous and carbonate gravel components close to the reefs and islands, except on their relatively sheltered SW side, where sandy silty clays occur. At Paluma Shoals, the coral assemblage is characteristic of inner‐shelf or sheltered habitats on the GBR shelf (dominated by Galaxea fascicularis , up to >50% coral cover) and is broadly similar to that at Phillips Reef, further offshore and in deeper water. The sediments of the Paluma Shoals reef flats consist of mixed terrigenous and calcareous gravels and sands, with intermixed silts and clays, whereas the reef slope is dominated by gravelly quartz sands. The main turbidity‐generating process is wave‐driven resuspension, and turbidity ranges up to 175 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). In contrast, at Phillips Reef, turbidity is <15 NTU and varies little. At Paluma Shoals, turbidity of >40 NTU probably occurs for a total of >40 days each year, and relatively little time is spent at intermediate turbidities (15–50 NTU). The extended time spent at either low or high turbidities is consistent with the biological response of some species of corals to adopt two alternative mechanisms of functioning (autotrophy and heterotrophy) in response to different levels of turbidity. Sedimentation rates over periods of hours may reach the equivalent of 10 000 times the mean global background terrigenous flux (BTF) of sediment to the sea floor, i.e. 10 000 BTF, over three orders of magnitude greater than the Holocene average for Halifax Bay of <3 BTF. As elsewhere along the nearshore zone of the central GBR, dry‐season hydrodynamic conditions form a primary control upon turbidity and the distribution of bed sediments. The location of modern nearshore coral reefs is controlled by the presence of suitable substrates, which in Halifax Bay are Pleistocene and early Holocene coarse‐grained (and relatively stable) alluvial deposits.

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.

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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.242 · 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