MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101471177 · doi:10.2113/gscpgbull.57.3.251

Basin-scale distribution of authigenic clay minerals in the Late Maastrichtian-Early Paleocene fluvial strata of the Alberta foredeep: implications for burial depth

2009· article· en· W2101471177 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Ahmed Khidir, Octavian Catuneanu

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicClay minerals and soil interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaEncana (Canada)
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAuthigenicGeologyIlliteChloriteClay mineralsGeochemistryKaoliniteFluvialSedimentary rockStructural basinQuartzGeomorphologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Late Maastrichtian to Early Paleocene fluvial strata of the Scollard, Coalspur, and Willow Creek formations in the Alberta foredeep contain complex and variably abundant authigenic clay mineral assemblages. The authigenic clay minerals in the Scollard sandstones consist mainly of kaolinite and smectite, whereas the Coalspur and the Willow Creek sandstones carry chlorite, chlorite-smectite, dickite, illite, and illite-smectite, with subordinate smectite and kaolinite. The diversity in the distribution of the authigenic clay minerals in the region is not random, but follows basin-scale trends that reflect the burial depth history of these strata. The general absence of dickite, coupled with limited conversion of smectite into illite in the Scollard sandstones, suggests crystallization at depth less than 1.5 km. In contrast, the occurrence of blocky dickite, fibrous illite and chlorite in the Coalspur and Willow Creek sandstones, coupled with albitized feldspars and quartz cement, suggests that sandstones underwent a maximum burial depth greater than 3 km.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of Canadian Petroleum GeologySame topicClay minerals and soil interactionsFrench-language works237,207