Micromorphology of ice keel scour in pebbly sandy mud and fine‐grained sands: <scp>S</scp>carborough <scp>B</scp>luffs, <scp>O</scp>ntario, <scp>C</scp>anada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The keels of icebergs and ice‐pressure ridges plough through unconsolidated sea/lake sediments gouging out long grooves known as ice keel scour marks. Although the surface and (more recently) subsurface morphology of scours are well‐documented, little is known of the effect of grain size on the detectability, style and intensity of sub‐scour deformation. This investigation macroscopically and microscopically (two‐dimensional thin sections) examines suspected ice keel scour in: (i) glaciolacustrine pebbly sandy mud and (ii) fine‐grained sands at Scarborough Bluffs, Ontario, Canada. In this investigation, there is an almost identical suite of deformation structures (individual structures and overprinted structural patterns) to those identified in iceberg‐scoured clays from former Glacial Lake Agassiz (Manitoba, Canada); this confirms that deformation in the pebbly sandy mud and fine‐grained sands at Scarborough Bluffs is likely to be indicative of ice keel scour. Discrete differences in the detectability, style and intensity of deformation between the Scarborough Bluffs and Glacial Lake Agassiz sediments are probably a function of grain size in response to ice keel scour. This research provides additional information on the types of structures that are associated with sediment deformation by processes of ice keel scour in a variety of grain sizes. This information is particularly valuable to inform palaeoenvironmental reconstruction and offshore engineering in areas where ice keel scour occurs in a variety of grain sizes. It also demonstrates the potential value of micromorphology where, for example, the study of cores is necessary.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".