Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is commonly assumed that the gradients of pre-vegetation fluvial systems were greater than those of modern rivers. If the measured thickness of crossbeds is first corrected for post-depositional compaction, using thin-section-based observations, the corrected thickness data can be applied to a new suite of formulae, based on observations of >4000 modern rivers, to provide more realistic paleohydrological reconstructions of ancient river systems. Using this approach, after correction for 36% compaction, the average slope of the rivers that deposited the Mississagi Formation was calculated as 0.0013 m/m (0.0005–0.0026), with an average bankfull channel depth of 2.67 m. The slope of Serpent Formation rivers, after correction for 33.5% compaction, averaged 0.0007 m/m (0.0003–0.0016), with an average bankfull channel depth of 5.85 m. The calculation of slopes using this approach on these Paleoproterozoic and other Precambrian systems indicates that primary river gradients were similar to modern rivers, falling well below the “depositional gap”, of 0.007–0.026 m/m, between modern rivers and arid-region fans, negating the long-held idea that pre-vegetation rivers had higher slopes than their modern counterparts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".