Physical and chemical growth conditions of Ordovician organogenic deep‐water dolomite concretions: implications for the δ<sup>18</sup>O of Early Palaeozoic sea water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The estimated depth of formation of authigenic dolomite concretions in the Middle Ordovician Cloridorme Formation, Quebec, ranges from < 1 m to 150–200 m below sea floor (mbsf) (mostly between < 1 and 25 mbsf), based on centre‐to‐margin variations in minus‐cement porosity (80–90% to 45–75%). Formation depths are > 350 mbsf (25–17% porosity) in the Lower Ordovician Levis Formation. Outward‐decreasing δ 13 C VPDB values (10·2–0·8‰) suggest precipitation in the methane generation zone with an increasing contribution of light carbonate derived by advection from thermocatalytic reactions at depth. Anomalously low δ 18 O VPDB values (centre‐to‐margin variations of −0·4 to −7·5‰) give reasonable temperatures for the concretion centres only if the δ 18 O of Ordovician sea water was negative (−6‰) and the bottom water was warm (> 15 °C). The 3–5‰ lower values for the concretion margins compared with the centres can be explained if, in addition, volcanic‐ash alteration, organic‐matter decomposition and/or advection of 18 O‐depleted water lowered the δ 18 O of the pore water further by 2·0–4·0‰ during the first 25–200 m of burial. Reasonable growth temperatures for the margins of 17–20 °C are compatible with a lowering of the isotopic ratios by 1 to < 1·3‰ as a temperature effect. The systematic concentric isotope zonation of the concretions suggests that the well‐ordered near‐stoichiometric dolomite is a primary feature and not the result of recrystallization. Diagenetic dolomite beds of the Cloridorme Formation appear to have formed by coalescence of concretions, as shown by randomly sampled traverses that indicate formation at different subsurface depths. Growth of the Cloridorme dolomites was probably limited by calcium availability, at least 50% of which was derived from connate water, and the remainder by diffusion from sea water. Dolomite precipitation was favoured over calcite by very high sedimentation rates, the abundance of marine organic matter in the host sediment and a correspondingly thin sulphate reduction zone. Deep‐seated concretion growth in the Levis Formation required either internal sources for the participating ions (carbonate dissolution event) or porewater advection along faults.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".