MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101197498 · doi:10.5539/jgg.v6n2p1

Late Holocene Geomorphology of the Columbia River Estuary, Oregon and Washington, USA

2014· article· en· W2101197498 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Curt D. Peterson, Sandy Vanderburgh, Michael C. Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geography and Geology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoastal and Marine Dynamics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityLethbridge College
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsShoalEstuaryGeologyOceanographyHoloceneFluvialHydrology (agriculture)SedimentFloodplainBayGeomorphologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abundant river sediment supply and an open-water central bay area characterize the geomorphology of the large Columbia River estuary (~ 100 km in length). Lateral floodplains and marsh islands do constrict the uppermost reaches of the estuary, but the central axes of the lower estuary are dominated by shallow sand shoals (0–4 m water depth). A total of 58 vibracores are used to document the grain size and age (0–2,500 14CyrBP) of late Holocene deposits in the estuary. Sedimentation rates in stable floodplains (1.1 m ka-1) reflect rates of relative sea level rise (0.75 m ka-1). Sedimentation rates of muddy sand accretionary banks and prehistoric sand shoals (1.5–7 m ka-1) greatly exceed coeval rates of sea level rise, so they must represent short–term rates of vertical accretion resulting from channel lateral migration and associated cut and fill processes. The apparent paradox of unfilled accommodation space in the estuary is resolved by 1) winter wind–wave erosion of sand shoals to -3 m NAVD88 elevation and 2) asymmetric fluvial-tidal advection that results in net seaward transport of bed load in shallow tidal channels (> – 10 m NAVD88) and shallow subtidal shoals (> – 4 m NAVD88) during spring river flooding.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geography and GeologySame topicCoastal and Marine DynamicsFrench-language works237,207