MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139572127 · doi:10.12789/geocanj.2021.48.171

Hutchison Medallist 1. Wave-Dominated to Tide-Dominated Coastal Systems: A Unifying Model for Tidal Shorefaces and Refinement of the Coastal- Environments Classification Scheme

2021· article· en· W3139572127 on OpenAlex

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscience Canada · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversitySimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySedimentary depositional environmentOceanographyStormCoastal engineeringTidal powerSubmarine pipelineGeomorphologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coastal depositional systems are normally classified based on the relative input of wave, tide, and river processes. While wave- through to river-dominated environments are well characterized, environments along the wave-to-tide continuum are relatively poorly understood and this limits the reliability and utility of coastal classification schemes. Two tidal shoreface models, open-coast tidal flats (OCTF) and tidally modulated shorefaces (TMS), have been introduced for mixed wave-tide coastal settings. Following nearly two decades of research on tidal shorefaces, a number of significant insights have been derived, and these data are used here to develop a unified model for such systems. First, OCTFs are components of larger depositional environments, and in multiple published examples, OCTFs overlie offshore to lower shoreface successions that are similar to TMS. Consequently, we combine OCTFs and TMSs into a single tidal shoreface model where TMS (as originally described) and TMS-OCTF successions are considered as variants along the wave-tide continuum. Second, tidal shoreface successions are preferentially preserved in low- to moderate-wave energy environments and in progradational to aggradational systems. It is probably difficult to distinguish tidal shorefaces from their storm-dominated counterparts. Third, tidal shorefaces, including both TMSs and OCTFs, should exhibit tidally modulated storm deposits, reflecting variation in storm-wave energy at the sea floor resulting from the rising and falling tide. They may also exhibit interbedding of tidally generated structures (e.g. double mud drapes or bidirectional current ripples), deposited under fairweather conditions, and storm deposits (e.g. hummocky cross-stratification) through the lower shoreface and possibly into the upper shoreface.The development of the tidal shoreface model sheds light on the limitations of the presently accepted wave-tide-river classification scheme of coastal environments and a revised scheme is presented. In particular, tidal flats are components of larger depositional systems and can be identified in the rock record only in settings where intertidal and supratidal deposits are preserved; consequently, they should not represent the tide-dominated end-member of coastal systems. Instead, we suggest that tide-dominated embayments should occupy this apex. Tide-dominated embayments exhibit limited wave and river influence and include a wide range of geomorphological features typically associated with tidal processes, including tidal channels, bars and flats.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.185 · 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