MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902823613 · doi:10.1002/9781119424437.ch3

Toggling between expansion and translation

2018· other· en· W2902823613 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shelby Lynn Johnston, John Holbrook

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTexas Christian UniversitySwanson Family Foundation
KeywordsPoint barAccretion (finance)GeologySedimentary depositional environmentRipple marksFluvialPaleontologyLithologyBar (unit)GeomorphologyOceanographyPhysicsAstrophysicsRipple

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mud-dominated point bars are widely accepted as recording deposition by tidal influence, bar tails or counter point bars. Less understood are muddy point bars that lack these depositional origins and otherwise have the geometry of more traditional sandy point bars. This study seeks the cause of these ‘muddy-normal’ point bars by field examination of a point bar with features and architecture consistent with sandy deposits but containing mud-dominated internal lithofacies. This study examines a point bar in Late Cretaceous fluvial strata of the Dinosaur Park Formation in the Steveville badlands of Dinosaur Provincial Park, Alberta. Strikes and dips, palaeocurrents, photo panoramas and stratigraphic columns are used to determine accretion trajectories and lithologic trends throughout the bar with a focus on sand vs. mud accretion and its relation to accretion trajectory. The point bar alternates between sand-dominated and mud-dominated accretion sets, with mud comprising over 50% of the point bar by volume. Accretion sets are defined by consistency in accretion dips. Both mud and sand beds within accretion sets have current ripples and cross sets indicative of deposition by transport. This suggests that the mud layers were deposited by active accretion events and are not simple drapes. Muddy accretion sets consistently have orientations reflecting bar translation (parallel with palaeodip) and sandy accretion sets consistently have orientations consistent with bar expansion (normal to palaeodip). These data suggest that the muddy vs. sandy accretion sets record toggling between sand-favouring bar expansion and mud-favouring translational growth vectors. This bar toggle explains how to generate a mud-dominate point bar with general lobate geometry without imposing tidal drivers, bar abandonment, or asserting a fully counter-point-bar interpretation. This toggling between expansion and translation records periodic upstream to downstream shift in the point of attachment for flow momentum to the cutbank that is probably caused by unstable flood discharge trends over the life of the bar. Bar toggle should be considered a growth vector option for point bars along with more established translation and expansion. The point bar also has a strong palaeoseismic imprint in the form of liquefaction features and a large lateral spread near the tip that is contemporary with late bar growth. The source of this earthquake is uncertain but could record a currently unrecognised intraplate earthquake source or, intriguingly, could be associated with the nearby Bow City impact structure which occurred in the same time frame.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0590.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.197 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207