MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2181810118

Reservoir Facies of the Dodsland Viking Trend

2014· article· en· W2181810118 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. Edward Mathison, Alethia Geologica

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyFaciesUnconformitySedimentary depositional environmentPaleontologyGeomorphologyDeltaShoalSedimentologyShoreSedimentary rockOceanographyStructural basin
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Viking Formation, comprising the Dodsland trend of west-central Saskatchewan, consists of three stacked erosionally truncated deltaic successions (Viking 1 to 3 in ascending order). The uppermost erosional surface is a regional unconformity, the top of Viking erosional surface, which progressively bevels Viking stata from south to north. Erosional truncation, along the northern margin of the reservoir, has removed the entire Dodsland Viking reservoir assemblage (i.e. Viking units 1 to 3). Preservation of higher stratigraphic layers progressively from north to south, below the Viking top (VE 4) erosional surface, imparts an apparent southward imbrication of stratigraphic elements. Deltaic sediments, comprising each of the stratigraphic layers making up the reservoir trend, consist of both constructive and destructive elements. Constructive elements, forming the bases of each coarsening upward deltaic cycle, consist of prodelta mudstones that grade upwards to distal delta front thinly interbedded sandstones and mudstones. Destructive elements consist of two facies that record different shelf processes (i.e. wave reworking of delta front sediments to form offshore bars and shoreface erosion of delta top sediments creating both ravinement surfaces and subsequently mantling these with lower shoreface sediments). Wave reworking of proximal delta front sediments, along the northern edges of Viking 1 and 2 depositional successions, created linear bars (i.e. shallow shelf shoals facies). These highly bioturbated, poorly sorted sandstones to muddy sandstones form east west trending, south facing asymmetric ridges that constitute the main reservoir facies along the Dodsland trend. Immediately south of the asymmetric bars erosional shoreline retreat by storm wave activity supplied delta top sediment to the lower shoreface. The resultant transgressive sheet of interbedded mudstones and fine grained to pebbly sandstones is generally a few decimetres thick. Along the southern margin of the Dodsland reservoir trend this heterolithic assemblage thickens in the Viking 1 to form two, metre thick, paralleling bands of sediment (i.e. shelf sand ridges). Thin prodelta mudstones, at the bases of deltaic layers, form horizontal permeability barriers segregating the Dodsland reservoir into three flow units. Distal delta front thinly interbedded sandstones and mudstone have low to moderate horizontal permeability (generally less than ten millidarcies). Vertical permeability is low due to interbedding with mudstones and storage capacity is low due a low net to gross pay ratio. Shoal facies reservoir sands have relatively high horizontal permeability (tens of millidarcies to over one hundred millidarcies), moderate vertical permeability (single millidarcies to a few tens of millidarcies) and high storage capacity. Amalgamation of sand through repeated storm wave reworking coupled with intense bioturbation with both horizontal and

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological formations and processes→French-language works237,207→