Sedimentation on high‐energy sand flats in the Bay of Fundy: The record of tidal‐bore activity and deposition from high‐concentration suspensions of sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Cobequid Bay – Salmon River estuary, Bay of Fundy, does not possess particularly large tidal bores (maximum ca 30 cm). Nevertheless, detailed logging of 13 peels made from cores spread throughout the entire area influenced by tidal bores indicates that inferred tidal‐bore deposits comprise approximately 15% of the deposits in the upper‐flow‐regime sand flats in the inner part of the estuary, averaging more than 10 tidal‐bore layers per metre of core. A landward increase in tidal‐bore height is accompanied by an increase in the number and thickness of the tidal‐bore layers. The deposit of a single tidal bore begins with structureless sand (from <1 cm to >10 cm thick) that can be gradationally overlain by sand with indistinct parallel lamination, which in turn passes upward into the well‐defined parallel lamination that is the dominant sedimentary structure in these sand‐flat deposits. The bases of the structureless layers range from prominently erosional to passively draping over the ripples formed during the preceding ebb tide. The structureless and indistinctly laminated layers are interpreted to be the deposit of bore‐generated hyperconcentrated suspensions of sand that have similarities with turbidity currents in which near‐bed turbulence is extinguished or damped. The tidal‐bore Froude number (Fr tb ), which determines the nature of the tidal bore, together with the height of the tidal bore, influences the amount of sand in suspension, and presumably also controls the nature of the deposits. Tidal bores with high Froude numbers (Fr tb = 2 to 3) that are breaking create deposits that are analogous to the deposits of high‐concentration turbidity currents; most bore deposits documented to date from other ancient and modern settings are of this high‐energy type. Tidal bores that are closer to the lower limit of bore occurrence (Fr tb = 1) generate deposits that will be difficult to distinguish from the background sedimentation.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".