Coupled fluid flow and sediment deformation in margin‐scale salt‐tectonic systems: 2. Layered sediment models and application to the northwestern Gulf of Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In paper 1 we described a methodology to model coupled fluid flow and deformation in composite salt and siliciclastic tectonic systems and investigated their compaction and overpressuring behavior prior to and during continental margin‐scale gravitational spreading. Compaction‐driven Darcy fluid flow in clastic sediments is coupled through the effective pressure to their frictional‐plastic yield and mechanical deformation. Viscous flow of the underlying salt is independent of fluid pressure. Paper 1 presented prototype models that are limited to single uniform sediment lithologies, either sandstone‐type or shale‐type, that undergo mechanical and volumetric viscous compaction. In this paper we present models with layered sandstone‐type and shale‐type lithologies designed to better approximate the more complex stratigraphy of the Gulf of Mexico, our natural example. A first set of models demonstrates that layered lithologies can produce fluid pressure regimes similar to those observed in sedimentary basins. We then introduce an improved formulation of viscous compaction that includes a stronger dependence on porosity and depth (used as proxy for temperature), thereby more effectively self‐limiting viscous compaction. A second set of models with the improved viscous compaction formulation demonstrates that the onset of gravity spreading is mainly controlled by overpressuring in the landward end of the salt basin and that resulting shortening in the distal part is partly accommodated by horizontal compaction. Models with moderately high fluid pressure best reproduce conditions considered to have been necessary for large‐scale gravitational spreading in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, which led to the formation of the Perdido Fold Belt.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".