MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1719088221 · doi:10.2110/pec.07.52.0307

Facies Architecture of the Doe Creek Member of the Kaskapau Formation, NW Alberta

2007· book-chapter· en· W1719088221 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) eBooks · 2007
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIchnologyGeologySedimentary depositional environmentFaciesSedimentary rockPaleontologyPetrophysicsMeander (mathematics)Trace fossilPetrologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Upper Cretaceous (Cenomanian) Doe Creek Member, encased in the predominantly marine mudstones of the Kaskapau Formation in northwest Alberta, comprises a series of retrogradationally stacked northeast-southwest trending shoreline deposits. An integrated ichnological and sedimentological analysis of these shorelines reveals a complex depositional relationship between deltaic and open-marine shoreface successions. The shoreline trends in the Doe Creek Member display substantial variability in thickness, sedimentology, and ichnological character along depositional strike stemming from proximity to deltaic point sources. The Doe Creek Member exhibits excellent core control in the subsurface, allowing detailed facies analysis of these multifaceted shoreline deposits. The integration of ichnological and sedimentological analysis yields eleven distinct facies in the Doe Creek Member. The facies represent a variety of depositional environments, including fully marine offshore to shoreface deposits and deltaic deposits (e.g., prodelta, delta front, distributary channels and distributary mouth bars). These facies can be divided into two facies associations, based on recurring vertical successions of regressive delta deposits and open-marine shoreface deposits. The deltaic shorelines consistently develop thicker delta front sandstone packages, fed by associated distributary channels. Penecontemporaneous open marine shoreface sandstones, deposited laterally adjacent to the delta fronts, are typically much thinner and display significantly higher bioturbation intensities, resulting in a lower quality reservoir. This dichotomy of reservoir potential and quality has significant implication for hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation. Unfortunately, the deltaic and open-marine shoreface successions appear almost indistinguishable on gamma-ray well log signatures; this renders well-log cross-sections meaningless in terms of understanding the Doe Creek depositional system. In contrast, detailed core-based cross-sections reveal the complex facies architecture of the coeval deltaic and non-deltaic successions. The facies successions and facies architecture of the ancient shorelines of the Doe Creek Member highlight the inherent complexities induced by deltaic influences on a given coastal environment. Deltaic and open-marine shoreface successions are merely the end-members of a spectrum of coastal regimes in which there exist degrees of deltaic influence. Within each regressive shoreline trend, it can be shown that the degree of deltaic character is determined by the lateral proximity to a riverine point source. Therefore it is possible, based on integrated ichnological and sedimentological facies analysis, to locate riverine point sources on a given shoreline trend in the subsurface, which could provide significant economic returns.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.541
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.216
Teacher spread0.194 · 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