MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008985909 · doi:10.1029/2004jf000199

Naturally occurring scour pits in nearshore sands

2005· article· en· W2008985909 on OpenAlexaff
Alex E. Hay, Rachel Speller

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoastal and Marine Dynamics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyStormSeafloor spreadingShoreRange (aeronautics)GeomorphologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depressions 10–50 cm in diameter and O(10) cm deep were observed in rotary acoustic imagery of the seafloor during SandyDuck97. The rotary sonar record spans a 77 day period and 13 storm events. The depressions occurred during both the wave growth and the wave decay phases of each storm and over a relatively narrow range of wave energies (urms = 0.32 cm/s ± 0.05 cm/s standard deviation) and grain roughness Shields parameters(=0.7 ± 0.2). The observations are mainly from the outer surf zone in ≈3 m mean water depth at two stations separated by 40 m cross‐shore distance. Depressions were 6.5 times more frequent at the inner station (N = 485) than at the outer (N = 75). Areal densities were small: O(0.1) m−2. Depressions were also observed in the inner surf zone at a third station, for which the data record is less complete. The probability distribution of the locations of depression first occurrences is nonrandom (i.e., non‐Poisson) due to 50% reoccurrence in roughly the same positions from storm to storm. The geometry and temporal development of the depressions are similar to scour pits formed by cylindrical piles and other objects. On the basis of these similarities, and the clustering of first occurrence locations, we conclude that the likely origin of the depressions is scour about compact semimobile obstacles on or embedded within the sandy seafloor. Possible candidate obstacles include pebbles, large shells or large shell fragments, and the chimney structures left by burrowing organisms. Importantly, 13 of the pits evolved into meter‐scale lunate megaripples, indicating that these features can act as megaripple precursors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations10
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicCoastal and Marine DynamicsFrench-language works237,207