MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137726262 · doi:10.1306/03160908120

Spatial variation of Bakken or Lodgepole oils in the Canadian Williston Basin

2009· article· en· W2137726262 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zhuoheng Chen, Chunqing Jiang, Maowen Li

Bibliographic record

VenueAAPG Bulletin · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyStructural basinVariation (astronomy)PaleontologySpatial variabilityGeochemistryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There are two opposing schools of thought that infer either the Bakken Formation or the Lodgepole Formation as the primary source rock for the Madison-reservoired oils in the Canadian Williston Basin. A recent geochemical study revealed evidence indicating the existence of significant mixing of Bakken and Lodgepole oils in the Madison reservoirs. To investigate the geographic distribution of the oil compositions, we employed a multivariate statistical method to extract source and maturity-specific geochemical signatures from a geochemical data set for spatial analysis. Oil mixing appears to be geographically dependent and restricted by a northeast-southwest–striking zone (Torquay-Rocanville trend) in southeast Saskatchewan. Thus, fracture or fault systems are inferred to have provided high-permeability zones allowing Bakken-derived oil to migrate upward across the Lodgepole Formation. The areas without significant fault or fracture systems favor lateral oil migration along porous beds, restricting Bakken-derived oil accumulation to pools in Bakken reservoirs and Lodgepole-derived oils to occur primarily in overlying reservoir beds of the Madison Group.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAAPG BulletinSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207