Colorado River chronostratigraphy at Lee's Ferry, Arizona, and the Colorado Plateau bull's-eye of incision: REPLY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Karlstrom et al. (2013) raise two issues in their Comment related to aspects of the discussion in our paper (Pederson et al., 2013) about the Lee’s Ferry record and incision in the Colorado Plateau. We synthesize evidence for the bull’s-eye pattern of incision over the past 105 yr, finding that it does not match spatial patterns of river steepness, stream power, or proposed mantle sources of uplift. Karlstrom et al. (2013) express no concerns with these findings. Instead, their first issue is that longer-time-scale incision may have a different pattern, which may or may not be the case. Their second point expresses doubt that isostatic rebound would significantly increase incision rates in the central plateau, which seems based upon an erroneous geometric argument. Their Comment highlights two of their new papers, and we appreciate the opportunity to contribute to ongoing debates about the patterns of topography and erosion and how they relate to any active deformation, other baselevel controls, and bedrock erodability.
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 | 0.012 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".