Comparison between experimental and numerical stratigraphy emplaced by a prograding delta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. A one-dimensional model that is able to store the stratigraphy emplaced by a prograding delta is validated against experimental results. The laboratory experiment describes the migration of a Gilbert delta on a sloping basement into standing water, i.e., a condition in which the stratigraphy emplaced by the delta front is entirely stored in the deposit. The migration of the delta front and the deposition on the delta top are modeled with total and grain-size-based mass conservation models. The vertical sorting on the delta front is modeled with a lee-face-sorting model as a function of the grain size distribution of the sediment deposited at the brinkpoint, i.e., at the downstream end of the delta top. Notwithstanding the errors associated with the grain-size-specific bedload transport formulation, the comparison between numerical and experimental results shows that the model is able to reasonably describe the progradation of the delta front, the frictional resistances on the delta top, and the overall grain size distribution of the delta top and delta front deposits. Further validation of the model in the case of variable base level is currently in progress to allow for future studies, at field and laboratory scale, on how the delta stratigraphy is affected by different changes of relative base level.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".