Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Canary Debris Flow formed an extensive deposit on the NW African Continental Margin west of the Canary Islands. Sidescan sonar images and 3.5-kHz profiles show that the middle part of the debris flow deposit consists of complex channel systems separated by banks and ridges of debris. Channels are typically up to 10 km wide and 10 to 20 m deep, and have little or no debris fill. They appear to feed a more laterally continuous debris flow sheet which is seen further downslope. Interchannel banks and ridges are composed of 5 to 20 m thick debris deposits. This morphology is remarkably similar to that seen in subaerial debris flows, and we therefore infer that the observed submarine debris flow morphology is a primary flow fabric, rather than the result of the debris flow interacting with or exploiting pre-existing channels. High-resolution Sidescan sonar images show that the debris flow surface is covered by sediment blocks up to 300 m in diameter. A single core collected from the flow shows that most of the 4.6-m flow thickness at the core site is composed of a single clast. The clast has been folded, with its upper part consisting of an inverted minor image of the lower part. The same sequence occurs again, in situ, beneath the debris flow, suggesting that the clast may have a local source, rather than having been derived from the debris flow source area, some 200 km upslope. This indicates that the debris flow was capable of substantial seabed erosion in the middle part of its course. In these middle reaches, erosion within the channelled areas probably occurred simultaneously with deposition in the interchannel areas. Interchannel deposits may contain both locally derived and original source area material.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.989 | 0.992 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".