The role of fluid- and sediment-gravity flow processes during deposition of deltaic conglomerates (Cardium Formation, Upper Cretaceous), west-central Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Article| December 01, 2003 The role of fluid- and sediment-gravity flow processes during deposition of deltaic conglomerates (Cardium Formation, Upper Cretaceous), west-central Alberta R.W.C. Arnott R.W.C. Arnott Dept. of Earth Sciences, and Ottawa-Carleton Geosciences Centre, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5 Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology (2003) 51 (4): 426–436. https://doi.org/10.2113/51.4.426 Article history received: 15 Apr 2002 accepted: 03 Jun 2003 first online: 02 Mar 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation R.W.C. Arnott; The role of fluid- and sediment-gravity flow processes during deposition of deltaic conglomerates (Cardium Formation, Upper Cretaceous), west-central Alberta. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology 2003;; 51 (4): 426–436. doi: https://doi.org/10.2113/51.4.426 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyBulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology Search Advanced Search Abstract Most previous studies on conglomerates of the Carrot Creek Member (Cardium Formation) in the Cyn-Pem/Carrot Creek area of west-central Alberta have focused on understanding the stratigraphic context of these informally termed conglomerate "bars". However, a detailed understanding of the depositional mechanisms that controlled the spatial distribution of conglomerate facies, which in turn control reservoir quality and related production characteristics within and between different pools, is presently lacking. As a result, a number of important questions still remain. However, many of these issues can be resolved by differentiating distributary-channel from delta-front conglomerates, and also appreciating the sedimentological importance of the steep depositional gradient (>15°) on the delta front. Distributary-channel and delta-front conglomerates commonly consist of interstratified, matrix-rich and matrix-poor conglomerate. In distributary-channel conglomerates, this bipartite texture is most likely related to the spatial variability of gravel and sand deposition on the leeside of gravel-bed, subaqueous dunes and/or bars. Reservoir quality in these conglomerates was significantly reduced by a later infiltrated sand matrix. Marine conglomerates, on the other hand, were deposited on a steep delta-front by sediment-gravity processes. Planar-based, ungraded, matrix-supported conglomerate overlain abruptly by better-sorted, very coarse sandstone or granule/fine pebble conglomerate represent, respectively, en masse deposition from high-concentration sediment-gravity-flow dispersions and grain-by-grain gravity-driven transport and deposition. Most dispersions collapsed on the delta slope, but others flowed to the base of the slope and deposited their sediment in a granular jump. Much of the sand-sized sediment deposited at the mouths of the distributary-channel network was winnowed and remobilized by waves and transported alongshore and away from the delta front and, as a consequence, preserved the high-reservoir quality that characterizes delta front conglomerates. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".