Zebra dolomitization as a result of focused fluid flow in the Rocky Mountains Fold and Thrust Belt, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Discordant zebra dolomite bodies occur locally in the Middle Cambrian Cathedral and Eldon Formations of the Main Ranges of the Canadian Rocky Mountains Fold and Thrust Belt. They are characterized by alternating dark grey (a) and white (b) bands, forming an ‘abba’ diagenetic cyclicity. These bands developed parallel to both bedding and cleavage. Dark grey (a) bands consist of fine (< 300 μm) non‐planar crystalline impure dolomite. The white (b) bands are composed of coarse (up to several millimetres) milky‐white pure saddle dolomites (b1) which are often covered by pore‐lining zoned dolomite (b2). Thebphases often possess a saddle‐shaped morphology. In contrast to the replacement origin of theadolomite, the zonedb2dolomite rims are interpreted as a cement formed in open cavities. Theb1dolomite is interpreted as the result of recrystallization with diagenetic leaching of non‐carbonate components. All the zebra dolomites studied are (nearly) stoichiometric and are characterized by enriched Na and depleted Sr concentrations. Fe and Mn concentrations in these dolomites differ depending on the sample locality. Fluid inclusion data indicate that the dolomites formed from relatively hot (TH = 130–200 °C), saline (20–23 wt% CaCl2eq.) fluids. A diagenetic high temperature origin is also supported by depletedδ18O values (−20 to −14‰ VPDB). A contribution of87Sr‐enriched fluids is reflected in the87Sr/86Sr values (0·7091–0·7123). Zebra dolomite development is explained by focused fluid flow, which exploited areas of structural weaknesses (e.g. basin‐platform, rim areas, faults, etc.). Expulsion of hot basinal brines in a tectonically active regime generated overpressures, which explains the development of secondary porosity during zebra dolomitization as well as the intra‐zebra fracturing at decimetre to micrometre scale.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".