MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400488037 · doi:10.1029/2023jf007468

Seasonality of Retreat Rate of a Wave‐Exposed Marsh Edge

2024· article· en· W4400488037 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lukas WinklerPrins, Jessica R. Lacy, Mark T. Stacey, Joshua B. Logan, Andrew W. Stevens

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Earth Surface · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyMcGill University
KeywordsMarshBeach morphodynamicsSalt marshErosionSeasonalityAccretion (finance)BayGeologyOceanographyPhysical geographyEnvironmental scienceGeographyWetlandEcologyGeomorphologySediment transportSediment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Wave‐driven erosion of marsh boundaries is a major cause of marsh loss, but little research has captured the effect of seasonal differences on marsh‐edge retreat rates to illuminate temporal patterns of when the majority of this erosion is occurring. Using five surface models captured over a study year of a marsh with a steep escarped boundary in South San Francisco Bay, we find a pronounced seasonal signal, where rapid marsh retreat in the spring and summer is driven by a strong sea breeze but little change is found in the marsh‐edge position in the fall and winter. We found accretion in the mudflat transition region close to the marsh boundary in the calmer seasons however, suggesting intertwined morphodynamics of mudflats and the eroding marsh‐scarp. We observed large spatial heterogeneity in retreat rates within seasons, but less on longer (annual and decadal) timescales. The relationship between marsh‐edge retreat rates and properties of the wave field nearby is explored and contextualized against extant relationships, but our results speak to the difficulty in addressing spatial erosion/accretion variability on short (seasonal) timescales with simple models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Earth SurfaceSame topicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsFrench-language works237,207