Effects of sand supply on the morphodynamics and stratigraphy of active parabolic dunes, Bigstick Sand Hills, southwestern SaskatchewanGeological Survey of Canada Contribution 20060654.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sand supply is a major controlling factor on parabolic dune form and stratigraphy in inland settings. In this study, aerial photographs, ground-penetrating radar (GPR), and stratigraphic analysis document the morphodynamics of an individual and compound parabolic dune in the Bigstick Sand Hills, southwestern Saskatchewan. Migration rates for the last 60 years are comparable, although the profile morphologies differ, with the individual dune having a more aerodynamic form. Stratigraphic facies are also similar in both dune types, but the overall internal architecture imaged by GPR differs considerably. Configurations of cross-strata parallel to the downwind axis represent dominant foreset development and lee-slope slipface advance of the individual dune, and impeded slipface development of the compound dune. Stratigraphy transverse to the downwind axis represents radial deposition and foreset development at the individual dune, and vertical accumulation at the compound dune. The overall difference in parabolic dune form and stratigraphy is attributed to variations in sand supply, which determine vegetation development and sedimentation processes along the crest and lee slope. Sand supplied from active blowouts upwind of the individual dune inhibits vegetation colonization on the dune, whereas an absence of sand supply upwind of the compound dune leads to high levels of vegetation cover on the dune. Once supply drops below a threshold level, vegetation cover increases, causing sediment deposition and vertical accretion, and ultimately changing dune form. Overall, this study demonstrates that local sand supply and feedback processes are critical to understanding dune development in vegetated, inland settings.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".