MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2271004518 · doi:10.2110/jsr.2015.78

Stratigraphic Expression of Intra-Point-Bar Erosion and Rotation

2015· article· en· W2271004518 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Paul R. Durkin, Stephen M. Hubbard, Ron Boyd, Dale A. Leckie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sedimentary Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsGeologyPoint barPoint (geometry)Bar (unit)Rotation (mathematics)ErosionExpression (computer science)GeomorphologyGeodesyGeometryPaleontologyMathematicsOceanographyFluvialStructural basinComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Meander belts are characterized by a complex amalgam of point bars and associated depositional elements, such as oxbow-lake fills. Point-bar deposits are composite elements often characterized by complex scroll-bar patterns formed in response to processes of expansion, rotation, and translation of a meander bend. Intra-point-bar erosion is commonly observed in modern river systems, yet its product is rarely described from the ancient record. Late Cretaceous meander-belt deposits, consisting of a transition from a point-bar to counter-point-bar deposit, as well as an associated abandoned channel fill, crop out in south central Alberta, Canada. The strata are characterized by widespread evidence for intra-point bar deposit erosion and punctuated rotation. In the stratigraphic record, intra-point bar deposit erosion and punctuated rotation is expressed by steeply dipping discordant surfaces (up to 20°), which truncate previously deposited lateral-accretion packages. Across these erosion surfaces the direction of bar migration often rotates significantly, up to 50°. Subsequent accretion surfaces onlap intra-point-bar-deposit erosion surfaces. The analysis reveals that point-bar surfaces are formed through a complex interplay of erosional and depositional processes along their length, resulting in stratigraphic surfaces that may be highly composite. This study departs from more simplistic process models of point bars that consider deposits to be the product of continuous lateral accretion, and as such has important implications for paleoenvironmental reconstructions and subsurface reservoir characterization.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations89
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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