Impact of turbulence on magnetic alignment in sediments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapidly deposited layers (RDL) such as turbidites or hyperpycnites are mostly studied for their sedimentological properties, but are carefully avoided in paleomagnetic studies due to the disturbances caused by such sudden and rapid sediment accumulation. Therefore, these layers can also be seen as potential indicators of sediment parameters susceptible of affecting the alignment of magnetic grains and ultimately the acquisition of the natural remanent magnetization (NRM). We have compiled 13 Holocene rapidly deposited layers from core MD99-2222 in the Saguenay Fjord, eastern Canada (St-Onge and al., 2004) with varying thicknesses (from 7.1 cm to 1,510 cm) and 4 Quaternary turbidites of different origins, to document the influence of sedimentary and magnetic parameters on natural remanent magnetization acquisition. We found a logarithmic relationship between rapidly deposited layers thickness on the one hand, and the amplitude of inclination changes and magnetic grain sizes on the other. Inclination and magnetic grain sizes are themselves correlated to each other by a logarithmic law. As there is no relationship between inclination deviation and stratigraphic depth, compaction alone cannot account for such large effects on inclination. Flocculation is grain size sensitive, but it is expected to affect mainly the natural remanent magnetization intensity, rather than its direction. Turbulence that prevails during the rapid deposition of sediments during such events is most likely the dominant factor.
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) | 0.000 | 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".