Impact of inconsistent density scaling on physical analogue models of continental margin scale salt tectonics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of inaccuracies in density scaling on the structural evolution of physical analogue experiments of salt systems has been debated, and is here investigated considering a gravity spreading example. Plane strain finite element numerical analysis was used to systematically evaluate the impact of changes in density scaling on buoyancy force, sediment strength, and pressure gradient. A range of densities typical of natural systems (including compacting sediment) and physical analogue experiments was included. A fundamental shift in the structure of the salt‐sediment system, from diapir‐minibasin pairs to expulsion rollover, was observed when sediment and salt densities were altered from values typical of physical experiments (1600 and 990 kg/m3) to those most often found in nature (1900–2300 and 2150 kg/m3). Experiments equivalent to physical analogue models but with reduced sediment density showed diapir‐minibasin pair geometry, persisting to sediment densities of ∼1300 kg/m3. Salt burial by pre‐kinematic sediments was found to suppress diapir formation for thicknesses greater than ∼750 m (0.75 cm at the laboratory scale). The relative importance of disproportionately high buoyancy force, low sediment strength, and pressure gradient in physical experiments was investigated by isolating each of these scaling errors in turn. Buoyancy was found to be most influential in the development of diapir‐minibasin pairs versus expulsion rollover geometry. Finally, we demonstrate that dry physical analogue experiments with sediment density reduced to ∼1140 kg/m3 (achievable through mixing with hollow glass beads) would provide a reasonable approximation of submarine salt systems in nature (including water load and hydrostatic pore fluid pressure).
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".