MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The sedimentology and alluvial architecture of the sandy braided South Saskatchewan River, Canada

2006· article· en· W2127088733 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gregory H. Sambrook Smith, Philip J. Ashworth, Jim Best, John Woodward, Chris Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueSedimentology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignNatural Environment Research CouncilLeverhulme Trust
KeywordsFaciesGeologyTrough (economics)AlluviumBar (unit)GeomorphologyGround-penetrating radarGeometryRadar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ground penetrating radar (GPR) surveys of unit and compound braid bars in the sandy South Saskatchewan River, Canada, are used to test the influential facies model for sandy braided alluvium presented by Cant & Walker (1978) . Four main radar facies are identified: (1) high‐angle (up to angle‐of‐repose) inclined reflections, interpreted as having formed at the margins of migrating bars; (2) discontinuous undular and/or trough‐shaped reflections, interpreted as cross‐strata associated with the migration of sinuous‐crested dunes; (3) low‐angle (< 6°) reflections, interpreted as formed by low‐amplitude dunes or unit bars as they migrate onto bar surfaces; and (4) reflections of variable dip bounded by a concave reflection, interpreted as being formed by the filling of channel scours, cross‐bar channels or depressions on the bar surface. The predominant vertical arrangement of facies is discontinuous trough‐shaped reflections at the channel base overlain by discontinuous undular reflections, overlain by low‐angle reflections that dominate the deposits near the bar surface. High‐angle inclined reflections are only found near the surface of unit bars, and are of relatively small‐scale (< 0·5 m), but can be found at a greater range of depths within compound bars. The GPR data show that a high spatial variability exists in the distribution of facies between different compound bars, with facies variability within a single bar being as pronounced as that between bars. Compound bars evolve as an amalgamation of unit bars and other compound bars, and comprise a facies distribution that is representative of the main bar types in the South Saskatchewan River. The GPR data are compared with the original model of Cant & Walker (1978) and reveal a much greater variability in the scale, proportion and distribution of facies than that presented by Cant & Walker (1978) . Most notably, high‐angle inclined strata are over‐represented in the model of Cant and Walker, with many bars being dominated by the deposits of low‐ and high‐amplitude dunes. It is suggested that further GPR studies from a range of braided river types are required to properly quantify the full range of deposits. Only by moving away from traditional, highly generalized facies models can a greater understanding of braided river deposits and their controls be established.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations205
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSedimentologySame topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207