Grain size dynamics using a new planform model – Part 3: Stratigraphy and flexural foreland evolution
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Within the stratigraphic record, grain size fining has been commonly used to infer subsidence, rate and its variability has been interpreted as a signature of external forcing events. We have recently developed a model (Wild et al., 2025b) that predicts grain size fining within a two-dimensional Landscape Evolution Model to predict the effect of autogenic processes on grain size fining. Here, we couple it to a flexural model to predict the stratigraphic evolution of a foreland basin, the distribution of grain size fining, and which of subsidence or autogenic processes dominates in controlling the fining. We show that, throughout its evolution, the foreland basin experiences a gradual increase in the bypass ratio, F, that provokes a gradual shift from subsidence-dominated to autogenically dominated grain size fining but also progressively alters stratigraphic preservation. The amplitude, and therefore efficiency, of autogenic processes in controlling grain size fining processes is modulated by the shape of the surface topography that we control by changing the rainfall gradient and extent of the basin confinement compared to the orogen. We also show how the evolution of the basin can be mapped in the framework we recently developed (Wild et al., 2025c) to interpret grain size fining data. Finally, we demonstrate how the model results and our findings can be used to interpret the stratigraphy and grain size information stored in a real foreland basin, namely the Alberta Basin of Western Canada.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it