Fine-Grained Versus Coarse-Grained Wave Ripples Generated Experimentally Under Large-Scale Oscillatory Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Wave ripples were generated in a wave tunnel under large-scale oscillatory flow (orbital diameter 1–4.5 m) using two different grain sizes, very fine sand and coarse sand. The geometry of bed configurations that were produced varied strongly as a function of grain size: small anorbital ripples (wavelengths ~ 10 cm, heights < 1 cm) formed exclusively in very fine sand at low oscillatory velocities, whereas large orbital ripples (wavelengths 50–350 cm, heights 7–26 cm) formed in both very fine and coarse sand, but were subdued, sharp- to round-crested, and 2-D to 3-D in very fine sand, and steep, sharp-crested, and 2-D in coarse sand. The large ripples in fine sand, if aggraded, would deposit low-angle (5–15°) cross stratification resembling hummocky cross stratification, whereas the large ripples in coarse sand would deposit high-angle (15–25°) cross stratification that might be mistaken for the deposit of a dune because of its high dip angle and large set thickness (> 5 cm). These results support the hypothesis advanced by Leckie (1988) that large waves generate markedly different stratigraphic signatures in fine-grained and coarse-grained sediment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".