Evolution and sedimentology of a channel fill in the sandy braided South Saskatchewan River and its comparison to the deposits of an adjacent compound bar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The depositional stratigraphy of within‐channel deposits in sandy braided rivers is dominated by a variety of barforms (both singular ‘unit’ bars and complex ‘compound’ bars), as well as the infill of individual channels (herein termed ‘channel fills’). The deposits of bars and channel fills define the key components of facies models for braided rivers and their within‐channel heterogeneity, knowledge of which is important for reservoir characterization. However, few studies have sought to address the question of whether the deposits of bars and channel fills can be readily differentiated from each other. This paper presents the first quantitative study to achieve this aim, using aerial images of an evolving modern sandy braided river and geophysical imaging of its subsurface deposits. Aerial photographs taken between 2000 and 2004 document the abandonment and fill of a 1·3 km long, 80 m wide anabranch channel in the sandy braided South Saskatchewan River, Canada. Upstream river regulation traps the majority of very fine sediment and there is little clay (< 1%) in the bed sediments. Channel abandonment was initiated by a series of unit bars that stalled and progressively blocked the anabranch entrance, together with dune deposition and stacking at the anabranch entrance and exit. Complete channel abandonment and subsequent fill of up to 3 m of sediment took approximately two years. Thirteen kilometres of ground‐penetrating radar surveys, coupled with 18 cores, were obtained over the channel fill and an adjacent 750 m long, 400 m wide, compound bar, enabling a quantitative analysis of the channel and bar deposits. Results show that, in terms of grain‐size trends, facies proportions and scale of deposits, there are only subtle differences between the channel fill and bar deposits which, therefore, renders them indistinguishable. Thus, it may be inappropriate to assign different geometric and sedimentological attributes to channel fill and bar facies in object‐based models of sandy braided river alluvial architecture.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".