Dolomitization of the Lower Ordovician Watts Bight Formation of the St. George Group, western Newfoundland: evidence of hydrothermal fluid alterationGeological Survey of Canada Contribution 20080544.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Watts Bight Formation in western Newfoundland consists of a Lower Ordovician succession of shallow-water carbonates and has been extensively dolomitized. These dolomites occur as both replacements and cements and are associated with complex changes in the rock porosity and permeability. Early replacement micritic dolomites (D1) are finely crystalline and indicate that dolomitization began during early stages of diagenesis. The calculated δ18O values of the earliest (D1) dolomitizing fluids (–6.4‰ to –9.5‰ VSMOW, Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water) fall between the estimated δ18O values of Tremadocian seawater and meteoric waters and suggest mixing-zone dolomitization. A second phase of coarsely crystalline (up to 400 μm) dolomite (D2) replaces D1 dolomite and early calcite and is associated with enhancement in porosity and permeability through the development of intercrystalline pores. A late-stage saddle dolomite (D3) and late burial calcite cements significantly occluded the pores in some horizons. Petrography, fluid inclusions, and geochemistry show that D2 and D3 dolomites formed from warm (65–125 °C) saline (10 to 25 eq. wt.% NaCl + CaCl2) hydrothermal fluids. The calculated δ18Ofluid of D2 ranges from –4.5‰ to 3.6‰ VSMOW, and for D3 dolomites, calculated δ18Ofluid ranges from 1.4‰ to 8.4‰ VSMOW, suggesting an influx of basinal brines. The occurrence of high porosity associated with D2, combined with the laterally sealing tight limestone beds, presence of favourable source rocks, and thermal maturation, may suggest that the Watts Bight carbonates are possible potential hydrocarbon reservoirs and suitable targets for future hydrocarbon exploration in western Newfoundland.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".