MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DEVONIAN CARBONATES OF THE NIGEL PEAK AREA, ROCKY MOUNTAINS, CANADA: A FOSSIL PETROLEUM SYSTEM?

2008· article· en· W2073731459 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jürgen Köster, Ralf Littke, Hans G. Machel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Geology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersRWTH Aachen UniversityUniversity of AlbertaParks Canada
KeywordsGeologyDolomiteKerogenDolomitizationPetrographyCalciteCarbonateFluid inclusionsMineralogyStyloliteQuartzGeochemistrySedimentary rockTotal organic carbonAnhydriteFaciesSource rockPaleontologyStructural basinGypsum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study we report on Devonian (Frasnian – Famennian) limestones and dolostones exposed near Nigel Peak in the Main Ranges of the Canadian Rocky Mountains. These carbonates are a proximal facies of the Southesk‐Cairn Carbonate Complex. The investigated strata are stratigraphically equivalent to the oil‐ and gas bearing Nisku Formation in the subsurface of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, about 300 km to the east. The rocks were investigated by polarisation and cathodoluminescence microscopy, total organic carbon analysis, Rock‐Eval pyrolysis, solid bitumen reflectance measurements, gas chromatography and fluid inclusion analysis. Thin section analyses showed that silt‐grade quartz and saddle dolomite increase upward from the base of the stratigraphic section, and that porosities are generally low. This is due to reduction of pore space due to early cementation and extensive dolomitization. Cathodoluminescence identified up to four generations of calcite cements. TOC values ranged from 0.2 to 2.4 %. Rock‐Eval pyrolysis of carbonate samples resulted in measurable S1 peaks but not S2 peaks, indicating that there was no residual petroleum generation potential. Organic petrographic analyses identified dispersed kerogen and migrabitumen, and calculated vitrinite reflectance values were around 4 % on average which implies peak temperatures of 234–262 °C (due to deep burial) or 309–352 °C (due to short term hydrothermal heating). Fluid inclusion data indicates at least one pulse of hot fluids with elevated homogenization temperatures of > 300 °C, and this may explain the high thermal maturity of the studied rocks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petroleum GeologySame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207