MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898827013 · doi:10.1111/sed.12557

The influence of turbidity currents and contour currents on the distribution of deep‐water sediment waves offshore eastern Canada

2018· article· en· W2898827013 on OpenAlex
Alexandre Normandeau, D C Campbell, Matthieu Cartigny

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSedimentology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbidity currentBedformGeologyCanyonBathymetrySeabedGeomorphologySubmarine pipelineSedimentTurbiditeWavelengthSediment transportOceanographySedimentary depositional environmentStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sediment waves are commonly observed on the sea floor and often vary in morphology and geometry according to factors such as seabed slope, density and discharge of turbidity currents, and the presence of persistent contour currents. This paper documents the morphology, internal geometry and distribution of deep‐water (4000 to 5000 m) bedforms observed on the sea floor offshore eastern Canada using high‐resolution multibeam bathymetry data and seismic stratigraphy. The bedforms have wavelengths of >1 km but fundamentally vary in terms of morphology and internal stratigraphy, and are distinguished into three main types. The first type, characterized by their long‐wavelength crescentic shape, is interpreted as net‐erosional cyclic steps. These cyclic steps were formed by turbidity currents flowing through canyons and overtopping and breaching levées. The second type, characterized by their linear shape and presence on levées, is interpreted as net‐depositional cyclic steps. These upslope migrating bedforms are strongly aggradational, indicating high sediment deposition from turbidity currents. The third type, characterized by their obliqueness to canyons, is observed on an open slope and is interpreted as antidunes. These antidunes were formed by the deflection of the upper dilute, low‐density parts of turbidity currents by contour currents. The modelling of the behaviour of these different types of turbidity currents reveals that fast‐flowing flows form cyclic steps while their upper parts overspill and are entrained westward by contour currents. The interaction between turbidity currents and contour currents results in flow thickening and reduced sediment concentration, which leads to lower flow velocities. Lower velocities, in turn, allow the formation of antidunes instead of cyclic steps because the densiometric Froude number (Fr′) decreases. Therefore, this study shows that both net‐erosional and net‐depositional cyclic steps are distributed along channels where turbidity currents prevail whereas antidunes form on open slopes, in a mixed turbidite/contourite system. This study provides insights into the influence of turbidity currents versus contour currents on the morphology, geometry and distribution of bedforms in a mixed turbidite–contourite system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.209 · 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