MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111364173 · doi:10.2110/jsr.2009.084

Tidally Modulated Shorefaces

2009· article· en· W2111364173 on OpenAlexaff
Shahin E. Dashtgard, Murray K. Gingras, James A. MacEachern

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sedimentary Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Tidally modulated shorefaces (TMS) are wave-dominated, but differ from conventional shorefaces in that sediments deposited in water depths equivalent to the upper, middle, and lower shoreface (depending upon the tidal range) are regularly subjected to variable wave processes, including swash–backwash, breaking-wave and surf processes, and shoaling waves during the tidal cycle. In upper macrotidal and megatidal settings, it is also possible that these shoreface deposits are subaerially exposed during low tide. TMS exhibit the morphology, seaward decrease in sediment caliber, and dominance of wave-generated sedimentary structures consistent with beach–shoreface settings. However, the sedimentological and ichnological structures of deposits exposed in the laterally extensive intertidal zone are more akin to those of the upper and lower shoreface, and not the beach. Four major differences permit the ready differentiation of tidally modulated shoreface successions from conventional shorefaces. (1) Sedimentary structures generated by swash–backwash (plane beds), surf and breaking waves (current ripples and trough cross-beds), shoaling waves (oscillation ripples), and storm waves (hummocky and swaly cross-stratification) are interbedded with one another across the shoreface. (2) Ebb-oriented tidal currents and surface runoff during the falling tide and at low tide deposit offshore-directed current ripples and combined-flow ripples in sandy sediments, or trough cross beds in gravel-dominated sediments. (3) Ichnologically, TMS exhibit a reduction in both the diversity of ichnogenera and density of burrowing across the entire shoreface profile. However, the incipient-trace associations are most similar to the Skolithos Ichnofacies in the upper shoreface–equivalent zone, and to the Cruziana Ichnofacies in the lower shoreface–equivalent zone. (4) The sedimentological and ichnological criteria commonly employed to identify the middle shoreface are spread out across the upper and lower shoreface, making this subenvironment difficult to differentiate.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations83
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sedimentary ResearchSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207