MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164929810

Review of Oil Families and Their Petroleum Systems of the Williston Basin

2013· article· en· W2164929810 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Mountain Geologist · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDevonianKerogenSource rockGeologyPetroleumOrdovicianPetroleum geochemistryPennsylvanianPaleozoicStructural basinCanada BasinAPI gravityPaleontologyPetroleum reservoirBasin modellingGeochemistryPetroleum engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The petroleum system concept was first applied in 1974 (Dow/Williams) to identify three oil systems in the Williston Basin, and recent studies have expanded the number to at least nine. This paper reviews the petroleum geochemistry, oil-oil, and oil-source correlations of the oil systems of the Williston Basin, providing a new perspective and some new findings. Petroleum systems with a known source (documented oil-source correlation) include the Red River (Ordovician), Winnipegosis (Devonian), Bakken (Devonian-Mississippian), Madison (Mississippian), and Tyler (Pennsylvanian) systems. Petroleum systems with an identified source rock but no documented oil-source correlation are considered hypothetical and include the Winnipeg (Ordovician), Duperow (Devonian), and Birdbear (Devonian). The Deadwood (Cambrian-Ordovician) petroleum system is speculative because a good oil-prone source rock has not been identified. The stratigraphic distribution of the oil families from each system is generally limited to the same formation from which they were sourced due to efficient seals and a paucity of vertical migration pathways, but some notable exceptions do occur. Oil bulk properties such as API gravity, sulfur content, and pour point are much underutilized in the recent geochemical literature and are found to be useful here in differentiating oil families. The Red River petroleum system has two oil families that can be differentiated based on pour point. The oils in the Madison petroleum system can be divided into two families based on API gravity-sulfur content relationships, with one family derived from Type II-S kerogen and the other family derived from Type II kerogen with medium sulfur content. The Tyler petroleum system of the Williston Basin may be distinguished from the Heath-Tyler petroleum system in central Montana based on differences in geology and petroleum geochemistry, with Tyler petroleum system oils having a higher pour point and lower sulfur content.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.191 · 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