Geometrical Breakdown Approach to interpretation of depositional sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Seismic and sequence stratigraphic analyses are important methodologies for interpreting coastal and shallow-marine deposits. Though both methods are based on objective criteria, terminology for reflection/stratal stacking is widely linked to eustatic cycles, which does not adequately incorporate factors such as differential subsidence, sediment supply, and autogenic effects. To reduce reliance on model-driven interpretations, we developed a Geometrical Breakdown Approach (GBA) that facilitates interpretation of horizon-bound reflection packages by systematically identifying upward-downward and landward-seaward trajectories of clinoform inflection points and stratal terminations, respectively. This approach enables a rigorous characterization of stratal surfaces and depositional units. The results are captured in three-letter acronyms that provide an efficient way of recognizing repetitive stacking patterns through discriminating reflection packages objectively to the maximum level of resolution provided by the data. Comparison of GBA with selected sequence stratigraphic models that include three and four systems tracts and the accommodation succession approach shows that the GBA allows a greater level of detail to be extracted, identifying key surfaces with more precision and utilizing more effectively the fine-scale resolution provided by the input seismic data. We tested this approach using a synthetic analogue model and field data from the New Jersey margin. The results demonstrate that the geometric criteria constitute a reliable tool for identifying systems tracts and provide an objective and straightforward method for practitioners at all levels of experience.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".