BAY OF FUNDY INTERT IDAL ZONE SEDIMENTS I
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sedimentation ccurs in 4 environments in the Bay of Fundy intertidal zone. These environmertts are (1) wave-cut benches, (2) estuarine clay flats, (3) tidal flats in lee of bedrock islands, and (4) salt marshes. Thin sediment veneers deposited on a wave-cut bench comprise 75 percent of the intertidal zone sediments of the Bay of Fundy. Such sediments are characterized by texture and composition which is similar to that of the underlying bedrock from which it was derived. Wave action and braided streams rework the sediments and leave the following combination of primary structures: lenficular cross-stratification; flutes; grooves; flat-topped, scoured, current, oscillation and interference ripple marks; current lineatlon; megaripples, and scour pits on the lee side of pebbles. Estuarlne clay flats are underlain by unstratified silt and clay which is drained by meandering creeks. Tidal marsh sediments consist of a silt and clay bank overlain by a thin zone of decayed plant debris. Tidal flats in the lee of bedrock islands were subdivided into a higher tidal flat characterized by gravel and sand, and a lower tidal flat characterized by gravel, sand, silt and clay. The higher tidal flats are drained by braided streams. Meandering creeks drain the lower tidal flats and develop a lag concentrate of gravel, sand, and clam shells at the channel bottoms by the process of lateral sedi-mentation. Comparison of Bay of Fundy intertidal zone sediments and Triassic redbeds of the Canadian Mari-time Provinces showed that both are characterized bythe same color, texture, and mineral composition because the modern sediments were derived from Triassic bedrock. However, the Triassic redbeds are of different origin as their characteristic combinations of primary structures suggests fluvial and lacustrine conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".