MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319039430 · doi:10.1190/ice2016-6340145.1

A critical look at the criticality of sediment-propelled turbidity currents

2016· article· en· W2319039430 on OpenAlexaff
Bill Arnott, Mike Tilston

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference and Exhibition, Barcelona, Spain, 3-6 April 2016 · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriticalityTurbidityTurbidity currentSedimentEnvironmental scienceGeologyComputer scienceGeotechnical engineeringGeomorphologyPhysicsOceanographyStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In nature turbidity currents are common, and in the deep marine are the principal sediment transporting agents that build up the largest sediment accumulations on Earth. However these powerful currents are notoriously destructive, and as a consequence have been largely unexplored. Accordingly, researchers have turned to analyzing them in the lab. Here it is easy to form a suspended-sediment-propelled turbidity current but because of their inherently dense nature these flows are not amenable to conventional sampling instrumentation. As a consequence most researchers have used variably concentrated saline currents with the implicit assumption, or explicit statement, that they faithfully mimic the dynamics of sediment-propelled currents. Based on that work, two end member kinds of (saline) currents were identified, and differentiated on the basis of flow criticality: subcritical flows have a high velocity maximum below which density is vertically uniform (“plug-like”) and above which density decreases rapidly and shows minimal mixing with the overlying fluid; conversely, the velocity maximum of supercritical flows is located at the base of the current, density decreases exponentially away from the bed, and the current as a whole shows extensive vertical mixing. The question, therefore, is under similar hydraulic conditions, are the velocity and density profiles in saline currents representative of those formed in sediment-propelled turbidity currents? In this study, we created a variety of turbidity currents of varying velocity and sediment concentration. However unlike these other studies, this is the first to accurately measure the density profile (here a surrogate for sediment concentration) in natural, sediment-transporting turbidity currents using a medical grade CT scanner. Given similar hydraulic conditions, the two end-member profiles are controlled exclusively by particle size; specifically the velocity, density and mixing characteristics of fine grained runs were similar to subcritical saline flows whereas coarse-grained runs were similar to supercritical saline flows. Such differences in density and velocity structure will profoundly influence the vertical distribution of momentum through the current, and the degree of vertical mixing, which has important implication for the conservation of flow energy, and therefore run out distance of turbidity currents in the deep sea.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference and Exhibition, Barcelona, Spain, 3-6 April 2016Same topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207