The influence of basin setting and turbidity current properties on the dimensions of submarine lobe elements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Submarine lobes have been identified within various deep‐water settings, including the basin‐floor, the base of slope and the continental slope. Their dimensions and geometries are postulated to be controlled by the topographic configuration of the seabed, sediment supply system and slope gradient. Ten experiments were conducted in a three‐dimensional‐flume to study the depositional characteristics of submarine lobes associated with: (i) different basin floor gradients (0 to 4°); (ii) different sediment concentrations of the parent turbidity current (11 to 19% vol); and (iii) varying discharge (25 to 40 m 3 h −1 ). Most runs produced lobate deposits that onlapped onto the lower slope. Deposit length was proportional to basin‐floor angle and sediment volume concentration. A higher amount of bypass is observed in the proximal area as the basin‐floor angles get steeper and sediment concentrations higher. Deposits of runs with lower discharge could be traced higher upslope while runs with higher discharge produced an area of low deposition behind the channel mouth, i.e. discharge controlled whether lobe deposits were attached or detached from their channel‐levée systems. A particle‐advection‐length scale analysis suggests that this approach can be used as a first order estimation of lobe element length. However, the estimations strongly depend on the average grain size used for calculations (for example, silt is still actively transported after all sand has been deposited) and the method cannot be used to locate the main depocentre. Furthermore, attempted reconstructions of turbidity current velocities from natural systems suggest that the method is not appropriate for use in inversions from more complex composite bodies such as lobes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".