MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ABSTRACT: Sequence Stratigraphy and Reservoir Quality of Alluvial/Lacustrine Reservoirs in the Albert Formation, Horton Group (Mississippian), Moncton Basin, New Brunswick, Canada

2002· article· en· W2050946790 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Murray Gingras David G Keighley

Bibliographic record

VenueAAPG Bulletin · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySequence stratigraphyGroup (periodic table)Structural basinSequence (biology)PaleontologyAlluvial fanStratigraphyAlluviumSedimentary depositional environment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sequence stratigraphy has proved to be a powerful approach to the modeling of stratal successions in increasingly diverse types of sedimentary basin, including lacustrine basins. New core data from a drilling program in the Moncton Basin of eastern Canada provides an opportunity to apply a sequence stratigraphy to the Mississippian Horton Group, specifically the alluvial-lacustrine Albert Formation. A low resolution tectonic sequence is attributable to basin initiation (basal conglomerates Dawson Settlement Member), deepening (sediment starvation - mudstone and oil shale of the Frederick Brook Member), and final infilling (mixed sandstone and mudstone - Hiram Brook Member). Lithofacies interpretations from core, and geophysical evidence further indicates that the higher resolution sequences would have formed under the influence of a predominantly wet climate. Accordingly, architectures typical of overfilled or Newark type basins are identified, such as well-preserved high-relief lacustrine deltas. Lithofacies successions also suggest that interbasinal thresholds also may have influenced architecture. Advances in SEM and image-analysis technology are also providing more quantitative porosity and cement data for samples from the new core, and confirm existing diagenetic models.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAAPG BulletinSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207