MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155978755 · doi:10.2110/jsr.2012.43

The Impact of Depositional Events and Burial Rate On Carbonate–Silica Diagenesis In A Middle Jurassic Stromatactis Carbonate Mud Mound, Sainte-Baume Massif, Se France

2012· article· en· W2155978755 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Floquet, Fritz Neuweiler, Philippe Léonide

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sedimentary Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyDiagenesisMassifCarbonateSedimentary depositional environmentGeochemistryPaleontologyStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Understanding the processes and conditions of chertification in carbonates is a challenging problem to assess the marine silica cycle. This contribution highlights parameters of internal silica recycling processes from their biogenic source to quartz cementation by describing a unique case of carbonate–silica diagenesis in a Mesozoic mud mound. Stromatactis carbonate mud mounds exposed in the Sainte-Baume Massif (Basse Provence, France) developed in an outer-shelf environment during the late Aalenian concavum ammonite Zone (Middle Jurassic). They form part of a cherty succession punctuated by hardgrounds and stratigraphically condensed intervals, interpreted to record deepening episodes. These mud mounds, rich in siliceous sponge spicules and stromatactis, are similar to their widespread Paleozoic counterparts but are particular in being extensively silicified. Carbonate–silica paragenesis forms a polymud fabric including four microcrystalline carbonates (M1 to M4; all low-Mg calcite, LMC), five spar cements (C1 to C5; C1 with high-Mg calcite, HMC, precursor mineralogy), and four silica phases (S1 to S4; S1 to S3 replacive chalcedony after opal-CT, S4 euhedral quartz cement). M1, assumedly related to the degradative calcification of siliceous sponges, forms a labyrinthine network into which M2 to M4 were infiltrated. Spar cements C1 to C3 include a successive decrease of δ18O at fairly invariable δ13C, interpreted to represent marine to shallow burial conditions, suggesting burial and successive transformation of marine bottom waters. Temperature estimation, based on the average δ18O value of C4 (δ18O ≈ −7.9‰), indicates a temperature of around 50°C at a maximum burial depth of about 1000 meters. Replacive chalcedony (S1 to S3) occurs between calcite cementation C3 and C4 in combination with traces of corrosion on C3. Mg-calcite was preferably replaced, particularly the precursor of cement C1 that surrounds peloids of M2, and preserved some ghost structures. Corrosion and substrate selectivity suggest that acidification, Mg-hydroxyl complexes, and surface area are the triggers for flocculation of a silica gel. Because dissolution of opaline sponge spicules started almost contemporaneously with C1, the dissolved silica was retained in a connate fluid as phases C1 to C3 were precipitated, and stagnant conditions prevailed for around 1 Ma. Bulk δ18O/δD values (S1–S3) below the marine chert line, together with the range of S1–S3 δ18O (δ18O SMOW = 28.3‰ ± 1.0) suggest silica flocculation in a shallow burial environment at temperatures of 25–30°C. The establishment of acidic conditions might have been favored by sulfide-oxidizing micro-organisms. Numerical simulation of early diagenetic silica flux in such marine sediments is consistent with the interpretation that small grain-size changes and fluid barriers (that create diffusion-controlled conditions), such as those induced by stratigraphic condensation, are key parameters to retain pore-water dissolved silica over geologic time. Inversely, Paleozoic stromatactis carbonate mud mounds typically form part of large-scale coarsening- and shallowing-upward successions that correspond to rapid burial. These conditions support convergent pore-water flux and drainage of pore-water dissolved silica in the shallow burial realm. Hence, spicule-rich mounds should tend to silicify if they form part of a condensed section.

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)0.003
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sedimentary ResearchSame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207