An alternative model of producing topography in the crest region of deep-water levees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The crest region of deep-water levees is commonly expressed as a mound-shaped element in seismic images made up of multiple dipping seismic reflectors. These dipping reflectors are generally thought to reflect actual stratal dip within levees. Basal contacts of levee strata in the Neoproterozoic Isaac Formation, however, show no discernible dip over hundreds of meters laterally or tens of meters vertically. Notwithstanding, medium- to thick-bedded (10–100 cm [4–40 in.]) strata in the proximal levee change in thickness laterally away from the channel, over hundreds of meters, causing their upper surfaces to form subtle topography. However, this topography becomes later infilled and, accordingly, the vertical stacking of these beds does not contribute to an upward increase in stratal dip. An alternative model proposes that levee topography in the crest region of some systems is formed mainly by thin-bedded (<10 cm [<4 in.]) turbidites that have a tabular geometry and terminate abruptly instead of tapering laterally. The upward, progressively more channelward (backstepping) stacking of these thin beds is interpreted to form a lateral-thinning profile. This stacking pattern is a consequence of diminishing flow magnitude, causing more limited lateral bed extent (i.e., flow runout), which in turn reflects increased channel confinement related to levee growth and reduced overspill into overbank areas. This model was then used to generate a synthetic seismic model that forms dipping reflectors similar to those observed in the crest region of some modern deep-water systems. Importantly, the reflectors produced in the model reflect a lateral change in lithofacies and not stratal dip. Moreover, these reflectors crosscut stratigraphy.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".