MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036776150 · doi:10.1144/m35.34

Chapter 34 Geology and petroleum potential of the rifted margins of the Canada Basin

2011· article· en· W2036776150 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David W. Houseknecht, Kenneth J. Bird

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society London Memoirs · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyStructural basinPetroleum explorationPaleontologyPetroleum geology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Three sides of the Canada Basin are bordered by high-standing, conjugate rift shoulders of the Chukchi Borderland, Alaska and Canada. The Alaska and Canada margins are mantled with thick, growth-faulted sediment prisms, and the Chukchi Borderland contains only a thin veneer of sediment. The rift-margin strata of Alaska and Canada reflect the tectonics and sediment dispersal systems of adjacent continental regions whereas the Chukchi Borderland was tectonically isolated from these sediment dispersal systems. Along the eastern Alaska–southern Canada margin, termed herein the ‘Canning–Mackenzie deformed margin’, the rifted margin is deformed by ongoing Brooks Range tectonism. Additional contractional structures occur in a gravity fold belt that may be present along the entire Alaska and Canada margins of the Canada Basin. Source-rock data inboard of the rift shoulders and regional palaeogeographic reconstructions suggest three potential source-rock intervals: Lower Cretaceous (Hauterivian–Albian), Upper Cretaceous (mostly Turonian) and Lower Palaeogene. Burial history modelling indicates favourable timing for generation from all three intervals beneath the Alaska and Canada passive margins, and an active petroleum system has been documented in the Canning–Mackenzie deformed margin. Assessment of undiscovered petroleum resources indicates the greatest potential in the Canning–Mackenzie deformed margin and significant potential in the Canada and Alaska passive margins.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.165
Teacher spread0.157 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society London MemoirsSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207