Asymmetrical deltas below wave base: Insights from the Fraser River Delta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Fraser River Delta exhibits distinct asymmetry in the sedimentological and neoichnological characteristics of the updrift (south) and downdrift (north) sides of the main distributary channel in water depths below storm‐wave base. The asymmetry is the result of net northward tidal flow. Tides erode sediments across the updrift delta front, whereas the downdrift delta front is an area of net deposition. A submarine channel prevents sand eroded from the updrift delta front from reaching the downdrift delta. The updrift delta front and updrift upper prodelta are composed of sand or heterolithic sand and mud that show a low density of burrowing (Bioturbation Index 0 to 3) and are dominated by simple traces. The downdrift delta front and prodelta, and the updrift lower prodelta are composed of homogeneous muds with significantly higher bioturbation intensities (Bioturbation Index 3 to 6), and a more diverse suite of traces akin to Cruziana Ichnofacies. Using the Fraser River Delta as an archetype and comparing the Fraser to the Amazon River Delta, a preliminary model for deep‐water (below storm‐wave base: ca 20 m) asymmetrical deltas is proposed. Firstly, deep‐water asymmetrical deltas are recognized from sediments deposited below storm‐wave base. At these depths, tidal and ocean currents are more likely to impact sediment transport, but wave processes are less effective as a sediment transport mechanism. Sediments deposited below storm‐wave base in deep‐water asymmetrical deltas will display the following: (i) the updrift delta front will be coarser‐grained (for example, sand‐dominated or heterolithic sand and mud), than the downdrift delta front (for example, mud‐dominated); and (ii) the updrift delta front should show low‐diversity suites of simple burrows. Depending on sedimentation rates, the downdrift delta front and prodelta may show either high diversity suites of traces that are dominated by both complex and simple burrows (low sedimentation rates) or low density and diversity suites akin to the updrift delta front (high sedimentation rates).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".