Magnetizations in Ordovician petroleum reservoir rocks, southwestern Ontario.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paleomagnetic and rock magnetic analysis was conducted on specimens collected from vertical core in four wells drilled in two producing Ordovician petroleum reservoirs of Ontario. The rock magnetic signatures of both reservoirs are similar, a mixed combination of single domain to pseudosingle domain pyrrhotite and magnetite, with minor hematite content in a few specimens. Characteristic remanent magnetization (ChRM) directions were azimuth-corrected by aligning the viscous remanence magnetization (VRM) with the present Earth's magnetic field direction. Although four distinct ChRM populations were identified through rock magnetic analysis, combined with previous geochemical and petrologic data, only two of the populations produced reliable paleodirections; the limestone (Ls) specimens had a direction of D = 172.2°, I = -0.1° (alpha 95 = 33.5; N = 5; k = 6.18) and the calcite and dolomite fracture fill specimens (Cs) had a direction of D = 183.3°, I = -10.4° (alpha 95 = 3.8; N = 49; k = 130.71). (Abstract shortened by UMI.)Dept. of Earth Sciences. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2006 .G37. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 45-01, page: 0255. Thesis (M.Sc.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2006.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".