MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Submarine mass‐transport facies: new perspectives on flow processes from cores on the eastern North American margin

2007· article· en· W2080226871 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSedimentology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFaciesGeologyDebris flowConglomerateTurbidity currentGeochemistrySedimentary depositional environmentSedimentGeomorphologySedimentary rockDebrisHyperconcentrated flowPetrologySediment transportBed loadStructural basinOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract No comprehensive scheme yet exists to describe the depositional products of submarine sediment failures at the scale of piston cores, resulting in misinterpretation of failure deposits and overuse of the genetic term ‘debris flow’. Ninety‐nine sediment cores (0·5 to 20 m in length), from offshore eastern Canada and the Gulf of Mexico, are used to propose a descriptive sedimentary facies scheme with genetic implications for mass‐transport deposits. Seven facies are distinguished: (i) allochthonous stratified sediment; (ii) distorted stratified sediment; (iii) clast‐supported hard‐mud‐clast conglomerate; (iv) matrix‐supported mud‐clast conglomerate; (v) thin mud‐clast conglomerate (<0·8 m thick); (vi) diamicton; and (vii) sorted sand‐gravel deposits (≥0·05 m thick). Seven genetic types of deposits are recognized. (i) Slumping of coherent sediment blocks (facies I). (ii) Slump and slide deposits (facies I and II). (iii) Debris‐avalanche deposits (hard sediment of facies I and II overlain by facies III). (iv) Low‐viscosity or large‐scale, high‐viscosity, cohesive debris flow deposits (facies IV, may have I, II, and III). (v) Very low‐viscosity debris flow deposits (facies V). (vi) Cohesionless debris flow deposits (facies VI). (vii) High‐density turbidity currents (facies VII). Vertical transitions between the genetic types were analysed by Markov chain analysis. Although sedimentological transitions are inferred between deposits of slides and cohesive debris flows, their spatial distribution indicates that a cohesive debris flow forms principally in the initial stages of a sediment failure, suggesting that transformation depends mostly on the strength of the sediments. A genetic link is suggested for cohesionless debris flow deposits, which originate from the disintegration of sandy sediment on the upper continental slope, and the closely related turbidity current deposits. Debris avalanches are common in sedimentary marine environments with steep slopes (>10°). In many cases, geometrical and seismic characteristics of debris avalanche, slide and debris flow are similar, requiring core data to verify transport process.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.203 · 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