MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127239081 · doi:10.2110/jsr.2012.29

Turbidites, and the Case of the Missing Dunes

2012· article· en· W2127239081 on OpenAlexaff
R. W. C. Arnott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sedimentary Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyTurbiditeGeomorphologySediment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: In the deep-marine stratigraphic record classical turbidites are common and when complete comprise five vertically stacked units, which in ascending order are termed the a to e divisions. The b division consists of planar lamination, which in almost all cases is overlain by ripple cross-stratification of the c division. Conspicuously absent in this succession is dune cross-stratification, which for sediments coarser than middle fine sand in a decelerating flow should occur between the planar-stratified and ripple cross-stratified units. Here it is argued that the paucity of dune cross-stratification is the result of the deleterious effect of suspended sediment on dune inception. Specifically, high suspended-sediment concentration, and hence high density, in the bottom part of the parent turbidity current prevents the development of a sufficiently sharply defined interface between the bottom part of the current and the dense, underlying bed-load layer. This results in the absence of the necessary hydrodynamic instability whose waveform structure along the interface would otherwise mould the bed surface into the incipient bed forms from which dunes (and also ripples) grow. The almost exclusive occurrence of ripple cross-stratification above planar lamination suggests that in almost all natural turbidity currents a sufficiently well developed density interface does not become established until flow speed is in the ripple stability field.

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)0.003
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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations44
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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