MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Late Pleistocene Tidal Rhythmites in Kyunggi Bay, West Coast of Korea: A Comparison with Simulated Rhythmites Based on Modern Tides and Implications for Intertidal Positioning

2001· article· en· W2097828928 on OpenAlexaff
Kyungsik Choi, Byeoung-Man Kim, Y. A. Park

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sedimentary Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicScientific Research and Discoveries
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntertidal zoneBayOceanographyGeologyTidal flatPaleontologySediment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Late Pleistocene silty tidal rhythmites in Kyunggi Bay, west coast of Korea, demonstrate various rhythmicities in lamina thickness associated with hierarchical tidal cycles ranging from semidiurnal to monthly (anomalistic) tidal variation. Such rhythmicities are very similar to those of modern tidal cycles in Kyunggi Bay, implying that late Pleistocene tides in Kyunggi Bay were similar to those of the present day. Hourly modern tides were analyzed as event series to simulate the late Pleistocene rhythmites, and they were truncated at different reference levels to simulate intertidal rhythmites, whereby relative position within the tidal frame was used as a threshold for lamina deposition. Comparison of spectral peaks between late Pleistocene and simulated rhythmites suggests that deposition of the rhythmites might occur in the upper intertidal flat, possibly near mean high water level and at least not higher than mean spring high water level in the case of a gradual decrease of accommodation space through deposition.

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)0.001
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations29
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sedimentary ResearchSame topicScientific Research and DiscoveriesFrench-language works237,207