MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171856802 · doi:10.2110/jsr.2015.03

Key Future Directions For Research On Turbidity Currents and Their Deposits

2015· article· en· W2171856802 on OpenAlexaff
Peter J. Talling, Joshua R. Allin, David Armitage, R. W. C. Arnott, Matthieu Cartigny, Michael Clare, F. Felletti, Jacob A. Covault, Stéphanie Girardclos, Emily Hansen, Philip R. Hill, Richard N. Hiscott, Andrew J. Hogg, J. H. Clarke, Zane Jobe, G. Malgesini, Alessandro Mozzato, Hajime Naruse, S. Parkinson, Frank Peel, David J. W. Piper, Ed Pope, George Postma, Pete Rowley, A. Sguazzini, C. J. Stevenson, E. J. Sumner, Zoltán Sylvester, C. Watts, Jingping Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sedimentary Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyUniversity of New BrunswickMemorial University of NewfoundlandCarleton UniversityGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsGeologyTurbidity currentKey (lock)TurbidityEarth scienceGeomorphologyOceanographySedimentary depositional environmentStructural basinComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Turbidity currents, and other types of submarine sediment density flow, redistribute more sediment across the surface of the Earth than any other sediment flow process, yet their sediment concentration has never been measured directly in the deep ocean. The deposits of these flows are of societal importance as imperfect records of past earthquakes and tsunamogenic landslides and as the reservoir rocks for many deep-water petroleum accumulations. Key future research directions on these flows and their deposits were identified at an informal workshop in September 2013. This contribution summarizes conclusions from that workshop, and engages the wider community in this debate. International efforts are needed for an initiative to monitor and understand a series of test sites where flows occur frequently, which needs coordination to optimize sharing of equipment and interpretation of data. Direct monitoring observations should be combined with cores and seismic data to link flow and deposit character, whilst experimental and numerical models play a key role in understanding field observations. Such an initiative may be timely and feasible, due to recent technological advances in monitoring sensors, moorings, and autonomous data recovery. This is illustrated here by recently collected data from the Squamish River delta, Monterey Canyon, Congo Canyon, and offshore SE Taiwan. A series of other key topics are then highlighted. Theoretical considerations suggest that supercritical flows may often occur on gradients of greater than ∼ 0.6°. Trains of up-slope-migrating bedforms have recently been mapped in a wide range of marine and freshwater settings. They may result from repeated hydraulic jumps in supercritical flows, and dense (greater than approximately 10% volume) near-bed layers may need to be invoked to explain transport of heavy (25 to 1,000 kg) blocks. Future work needs to understand how sediment is transported in these bedforms, the internal structure and preservation potential of their deposits, and their use in facies prediction. Turbulence damping may be widespread and commonplace in submarine sediment density flows, particularly as flows decelerate, because it can occur at low (< 0.1%) volume concentrations. This could have important implications for flow evolution and deposit geometries. Better quantitative constraints are needed on what controls flow capacity and competence, together with improved constraints on bed erosion and sediment resuspension. Recent advances in understanding dilute or mainly saline flows in submarine channels should be extended to explore how flow behavior changes as sediment concentrations increase. The petroleum industry requires predictive models of longer-term channel system behavior and resulting deposit architecture, and for these purposes it is important to distinguish between geomorphic and stratigraphic surfaces in seismic datasets. Validation of models, including against full-scale field data, requires clever experimental design of physical models and targeted field programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.017
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.006

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 head0.265
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.149 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations207
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sedimentary ResearchSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207