Dynamics and facies analysis of Mid-Late Holocene reef systems in French Polynesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The detailed reconstruction of reef geometry, composition and evolution during the mid-late Holocene brings valuable information regarding coral reef dynamics and coastal processes during periods of higher sea level and wave energy regimes.This study provides a high-resolution reconstruction of the reef growth history in French Polynesia and their response to low-amplitude, high-frequency relative sea-level (RSL) changes and associated environmental changes over the past 6,000 years. After the stabilisation of sea level at its present position, the newdevelopment of reef systems was initiated by the creation of accommodation space due to a glacio-eustatic sea-level rise from 6.0 to 4.1 kyr BP, and controlled by the antecedent topography of the islands. A single,short-lived sea-level highstand of less than one metre between 4.1 and 3.4 kyr BP is documented preceding a fall in sea level between 3.6 and 1.2 kyr BP. The reported RSL changes are characterized by slow rates ranging from a few tens of millimetres per year up to 2.5 mm/yr and by significant sea-level stability (stillstands) lasting more than a century and up to 250 years, defining a step-like pattern.Regionally, the persistence of stable and optimal depositional environments over the last 6,000 years is demonstrated by the constant overall composition and diversity of reef communities and the almost continuouswidespread development of microatoll fields and reef flat units. The facies distribution as well as the lateral extension and shift of facies belts have been governed by variations in accommodation space, which are controlled by RSL changes and antecedent topography. The recurrent sea-level stillstands that punctuated the mid-late Holocene sea-level history have played a significant role in the development of dense reef frameworks.The widespread development of mid-late Holocene reef deposits in coastal areas, especially reef flat units and storm conglomerate deposits, suggests that they have played a prominent role in the formation and shaping of modern islands and islets, creating significant topographic features that formed the foundations of these islands.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".