MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408440108 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-4294

What controls the structure of turbidity currents?

2025· preprint· en· W4408440108 on OpenAlexaff
Daniela Vendettuoli, Matthieu Cartigny, A. Clare Michael, J. Sumner Esther, J Peter, Koen Blanckaert, Maria Azpiroz–Zabala, C. K. Paull, R. Gwiazda, P. Xu Jinping, Cooper Stacey, D. Lintern Gwyn, Stephen M. Simmons, L. Pope Ed, Peter Lewis, John Wood

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources CanadaInternational Submarine Engineering (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbidityTurbidity currentEnvironmental scienceGeologyGeomorphologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analyzes turbidity currents across multiple systems using high-resolution oceanographic datasets and laboratory experiments. By comparing velocity trends throughout the turbidity currents, we identify two end-member types: short surge flows where peak velocity is followed by rapid decay in velocity and sustained flows where peak velocity is followed by a prolonged near constant velocity. Variability is explored across key parameters, including trigger, system type, slope, grain size, and distance offshore. The findings demonstrate that no single parameter explains all observed variations, with only grain size and distance offshore showing some degree of correlation with the type. Improved data quality, particularly on grain size variability within systems and individual flows, will be essential to understand the different types of flows and their relative process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological formations and processes→French-language works237,207→