A facies‐based depositional model for ancient and modern, tectonically–confined tidal straits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Modern and ancient tidal straits are the least well understood of all tide‐dominated depositional systems. To provide an increased understanding of these systems, a facies‐based depositional model is assessed by comparing multibeam surveys of three present‐day tidally dominated seaways with a number of superbly exposed Neogene‐to‐Quaternary strait‐fill successions of Calabria (south Italy). The model points out the existence of four depositional zones, laterally adjacent from the narrowest strait centre to its terminations, distributed along symmetrical or asymmetrical seaways. These zones, whose signature is recorded in four facies associations in the Calabrian tidal straits, are as follows: (i) the strait‐centre zone , associated with the tidal current maxima and where sediments are scarce or absent; (ii) the dune‐bedded zone , where sediments form dune complexes due to tidal flow expansion; (iii) the strait‐end zone , where currents decelerate accumulating thinly bedded, fine‐grained deposits; and (iv) the strait‐margin zone , where sediment massflows descend tectonically active, steep margins towards the strait axis. In ancient, tectonically confined, narrow seaways, these facies generate a distinctive deepening‐upward vertical succession, where tidal currents are the dominant process in the sediment distribution.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".