MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138368467 · doi:10.2110/jsr.2007.015

Anatomy and Evolution of a Slope Channel-Complex Set (Neoproterozoic Isaac Formation, Windermere Supergroup, Southern Canadian Cordillera): Implications for Reservoir Characterization

2007· article· en· W2138368467 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ernesto Schwarz, R. W. C. Arnott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sedimentary Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Natural Resources LimitedUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsSupergroupGeologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A detailed architectural analysis was conducted in Isaac Unit 5 of the Isaac Formation in the Castle Creek area (east-central B.C., Canada). Isaac Unit 5 developed within a turbidite-dominated slope system on the Neoproterozoic passive margin of western North America where sediment gravity flows and mass movements were common. Isaac Unit 5 crops out over a 3.5-km-long section oriented oblique to mean paleoflow direction and represents a long-lived pathway for transport and deposition that accumulated ~ 100 m of mostly sand in a deep-marine slope setting. It consists of three stacked, high net-to-gross channel-complex fills (8–30 m thick) that correspond to shorter-term flow conduits, which, in turn, are capped by mudstone-rich units. Fine-grained conglomerate and sandstone beds deposited from high-concentration sediment flows constitute most of channel-complex fills. In addition, muddy debrite and slump deposits occur, but although laterally extensive, are volumetrically minor. Laterally persistent, thin-bedded strata (4–20 m thick) composed mostly of Bouma Tc–e turbidites occur at the top of each channel complex and indicate episodes of local complex abandonment (interchannel complex deposition). Different kinds of channel-fill elements were identified within Isaac Unit 5, each characterized by a unique combination of facies assemblage, internal geometry, and bounding surfaces. Most commonly, channel fills consist of amalgamated, thick-bedded, normally graded sandstone (Bouma Ta and Tab divisions) associated with backfilling processes. Poorly stratified mudstone-clast breccia, associated with Ta beds and dune cross-stratified sandstones occur in channel fills that exhibit aggradational and laterally migrating stacking patterns. Inner-bend levee deposits are associated with this type of channel fill. Channel fills with inclined sandstone- and mudstone-rich strata, on the other hand, relate to non-aggradational, high-sinuosity channel conditions that developed during gradual abandonment of the pathways for coarse-sediment transport. In contrast, sudden deactivation of these pathways, most probably related to abrupt updip channel avulsion, led to accumulation of structureless sandstone passively filling the deactivated thalweg. In terms of hydrocarbon reservoir analogues, each of the five different channel-fill elements have unique reservoir attributes (connectivity and continuity), amalgamated and poorly stratified elements having the best (excellent to good) reservoir attributes. Due to high amalgamation at channel-fill scale, channel complexes would represent individual fluid-flow units where only laterally discontinuous permeability barriers (< 500 m long) are present. On the other hand, extensive thin-bedded elements and muddy debrites constitute kilometer-scale barrier-type facies that would effectively compartmentalize channel complexes within the channel-complex set. Strata of Isaac Unit 5 document the detailed stratigraphic complexity, evolution, and reservoir characterization that can be expected in turbidite-dominated slope channel systems developed on passive margins. Further, it is a potential analogue for similar systems developed in continent-margin basins that until now were known mostly from subsurface core and seismic data.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations59
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sedimentary ResearchSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207