Sequence stratigraphy of wave-dominated and wave-influenced shoreface deposits: Systems tracts, stratigraphic surfaces and facies contacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shoreface deposits are usually associated with high-energy sedimentary structures, as well as with erosional surfaces produced by waves and currents that may have sequence stratigraphic or sedimentological significance. Typical sequence stratigraphic surfaces associated with shoreface deposits are the ravinement surface (RS), the maximum flooding surface (MFS), the basal surface of forced regression (BSFR), the regressive surface of marine erosion (RSME), the subaerial unconformity (SU) and the correlative conformity (CC). However, some of these surfaces, such as the MFS, the BSFR and the CC can be cryptic and difficult to pinpoint in outcrops and cores. Facies contacts in the shoreface are represented by the local flooding surface (LFS), the downlap surface (DLS), the surf diastem (SD) and bedset boundaries (BB), which are usually well recognizable. All downstream-controlled systems tracts may form in shoreface deposits, including the lowstand systems tract (LST), transgressive systems tract (TST), highstand systems tract (HST) and falling-stage systems tract (FSST). Among these systems tracts, TSTs and HSTs are most commonly recognized. A challenge in these settings is the distinction between HSTs, FSSTs and LSTs, due to the more subtle physical expression of the BSFR and the CC in fully shoreface successions. Sequence stratigraphic surfaces and facies contacts can be identified on the basis of several criteria, including sedimentological, ichnological, diagenetic, mineralogic, geophysical, and micropaleontological. Due to their easy recognition with all kinds of data, RSs are commonly chosen as boundaries of stratigraphic sequences composed of shoreface or mixed shoreface-shelf deposits, commonly referred to as transgressive-regressive (T-R) sequences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".