Stratigraphic evolution and depositional system of Lower Cretaceous Qishn Formation, Dhofar, Oman
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Barremian(?)–Aptian Qishn Formation of Dhofar (Oman) is represented by eastward (landward) thinning strata that onlap Marbat palaeohigh basin margin. The formation includes Shabon, Hinna and Hasheer members, in ascending order. The Shabon Member consists of massive and cross-bedded, locally conglomeratic arkose and quartzarenite. The Hinna Member has a lower part of rhythmically arranged bioclastic wackestones/mudstones that grade to fine crystalline dolomudstone and an upper part of cyclic units of nodular, marly, rudistic floatstone/rudstone lithofacies capped by normally grading, intraclastic, bioclastic packstone/grainstone lithofacies. Mudcracks, teepee structures and microbial laminations occur in the lower part. The member terminates with 10-m-thick discoidal orbitolinid- and rudist-bearing marls envisaged as the deepest facies of the formation. The Hasheer Member consists of partly dolomitized strata of bioclastic packstones, grainstones and rudstones. Cross-bedding and erosional surfaces are present. The overall depositional system of the formation evolved from high-energy clastic-dominated, marginal marine environment through tidal carbonate mudflat and lagoonal setting to high-energy carbonate sand shoals. The overall stratigraphic arrangement of the formation suggests a third-order transgressive-regressive system with superimposed fourth- and fifth-order cycles. Shabon and Hinna members represent lowstand to transgressive systems tracts whereas Hasheer Member represents highstand to falling stage systems tracts. Terminal platform-wide exposure resulted in an unconformity at the Qishn–Kharfot contact.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".