Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mapping in the East Gobi basin, supplemented by seismic data, reveals a structural and burial history for basins adjacent to the Zuunbayan and Tsagaan Els oil fields. The tectonic framework was combined with available well and outcrop data to model the timing and magnitude of hydrocarbon generation. Five structural episodes are recognized: (1) pre-Jurassic northeast-directed shortening that formed the tectonic fabric; (2) Middle Jurassic to Early Cretaceous rifting along northeast trends that formed the subbasins of the East Gobi basin; (3) late Early Cretaceous north-south shortening and inversion on existing normal faults; shortening caused left-lateral and reverse displacements on northeast-trending faults; (4) middle Cretaceous uplift and erosion, followed by (5) east-west shortening and right-lateral movement on northeast faults. Folds formed by inversion over Middle Jurassic–Early Cretaceous normal faults. Modeling suggests that the bituminous member of the Zuunbayan Formation should be mature over large parts of the Unegt and Zuunbayan subbasins. Oil migrated from mature source areas toward several traps, including the Zuunbayan and Tsagaan Els fields. Modeling suggests that early oil (104–110 Ma) was generated in the Zuunbayan and Tsagaan Els area because of deep burial during the Cretaceous. Although generation began in the Early Cretaceous, peak generation in the Unegt subbasin occurred between 100 and 90 Ma. Generation continued at a decreasing rate up to the present day. Kerogen maturity (and oil field production) suggests that oil is the most likely product. Scoping calculations of hydrocarbon volumes generated indicate that the Unegt basin may have generated as much as 86 billion BOE.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".