What controls submarine channel development and the morphology of deltas entering deep‐water fjords?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract River deltas and associated turbidity current systems produce some of the largest and most rapid sediment accumulations on our planet. These systems bury globally significant volumes of organic carbon and determine the runout distance of potentially hazardous sediment flows and the shape of their deposits. Here we seek to understand the main factors that determine the morphology of turbidity current systems linked to deltas in fjords, and why some locations have well developed submarine channels while others do not. Deltas and associated turbidity current systems are analysed initially in five fjord systems from British Columbia in Canada, and then more widely. This provides the basis for a general classification of delta and turbidity current system types, where rivers enter relatively deep (>200 m) water. Fjord‐delta area is found to be strongly bimodal. Avalanching of coarse‐grained bedload delivered by steep mountainous rivers produces small Gilbert‐type fan deltas, whose steep gradient (11°–25°) approaches the sediment's angle of repose. Bigger fjord‐head deltas are associated with much larger and finer‐grained rivers. These deltas have much lower gradients (1.5°–10°) that decrease offshore in a near exponential fashion. The lengths of turbidity current channels are highly variable, even in settings fed by rivers with similar discharges. This may be due to resetting of channel systems by delta‐top channel avulsions or major offshore landslides, as well as the amount and rate of sediment supplied to the delta front by rivers. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
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 it