Three-dimensional control of alluvial fans by rock uplift in an extensional regime: Aydın Range, Aegean extensional province
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tectonics imparts a first-order control on the overall morphology of alluvial fan systems in extensional settings by influencing sediment flux and accommodation space, while other factors such as climate, catchment lithology, and fault footwall characteristics are secondary. Previous alluvial fan modeling studies have focused on the link between the three-dimensional development of alluvial fans and rock uplift, however, despite the potential influence of tectonics on the overall three-dimensional morphology of alluvial fans, the controlling mechanisms, as well as their relative importance, remain largely unquantified in a natural setting with a targeted source-to-sink approach. Here, we examine 45 alluvial fans and their catchments along the southern mountain front of the Aydın Range, delimited by segmented normal faults in the western Anatolia Extensional Province, to quantify the role of rock uplift. We quantify river incision rates and catchment-wide erosion rates together with a series of topographic analyses across the southern flank of the Aydın Range as a proxy for rock uplift. Our results indicate that the spatial distribution of thicker and steeper alluvial fans fit well with higher rock uplift rates along the strike of the mountain front. In contrast, a lower uplift rate is responsible for prograding alluvial fans with decreasing thickness and gradients. Also, our data shows that alluvial fan thickness compared to other alluvial fan metrics strongly associated with the pattern of the rock uplift. This study demonstrates a field-based, quantitative linkage between three-dimensional alluvial fan morphology and rock uplift which has significant implications for improving alluvial fan models and understanding how alluvial fans respond to tectonics in extensional regions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".