MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dimensions and architecture of late Pleistocene submarine lobes off the northern margin of East Corsica

2008· article· en· W2142396396 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSedimentology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
FundersNatural Resources CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDalhousie UniversityInstitut Français de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer
KeywordsGeologySedimentary depositional environmentLobePaleontologyFaciesStructural basinSubmarineGeomorphologyPleistoceneOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sandy lobe deposits on submarine fans are sensitive recorders of the types of sediment gravity flows supplied to a basin and are economically important as hydrocarbon reservoirs. This study investigates the causes of variability in 20 lobes in small late Pleistocene submarine fans off East Corsica. These lobes were imaged using ultra‐high resolution boomer seismic profiles (<1 m vertical resolution) and sediment type was ground truthed using piston cores published in previous studies. Repeated crossings of the same depositional bodies were used to measure spatial changes in their dimensions and architecture. Most lobes increase abruptly down‐slope to a peak thickness of 8 to 42 m, beyond which they show a progressive, typically more gradual, decrease in thickness until they thin to below seismic resolution or pass into draping facies of the basin plain. Lobe areas range from 3 to 70 km 2 and total lengths from 2 to 14 km, with the locus of maximum sediment accumulation from 3 to 28 km from the shelf‐break. Based on their location, dimensions, internal architecture and nature of the feeder channel, the lobes are divided into two end‐member types. The first are small depositional bodies located in proximal settings, clustered near the toe‐of‐slope and fed by slope gullies or erosive channels lacking or with poorly developed levées (referred to as ‘proximal isolated lobes’). The second are larger architecturally more complex depositional bodies deposited in more distal settings, outboard more stable and longer‐lived levéed fan valleys (referred to as ‘composite mid‐fan lobes’). Hybrid lobe types are also observed. At least three hierarchical levels of compensation stacking are recognized. Individual beds and bed‐sets stack to form lobe‐elements; lobe‐elements stack to form composite lobes; and composite lobes stack to form lobe complexes. Differences in the size, shape and architectural complexity of lobe deposits reflect several inter‐related factors including: (i) flow properties (volume, duration, grain‐size, concentration and velocity); (ii) the number and frequency of flows, and their degree of variation through time; (iii) gradient change and sea floor morphology at the mouth of the feeder conduit; (iv) lobe lifespan prior to avulsion or abandonment; and (v) feeder channel geometry and stability. In general, lobes outboard stable fan valleys that are connected to shelf‐incised canyons are wider, longer and thicker, accumulate in more basinal locations and are architecturally more complex.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.180 · 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