MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2255350906

A Surface to Subsurface Correlation of the Lower Cretaceous Pebble Shale Unit, Northeastern Alaska - Abstract

2009· article· en· W2255350906 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dolores A. van der Kolk, Michael T. Whalen, M. A. Wartes, R. J. Newberry, Paul J. McCarthy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyOil shaleCretaceousPaleontologyLiptiniteLithostratigraphySedimentary depositional environmentGeochemistryMaceralInertiniteSedimentary rockPetrographyStructural basin
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Near vertical exposures of organic-rich, Lower Cretaceous marine mudstone crop out in the northern foothills of the Brooks Range in northeastern Alaska. This mudstone, informally named the pebble shale unit (PSU), is equivalent to the Kalubik Formation in the subsurface. The PSU was deposited in shelfal water depths during the later stages of rifting that led to opening of the Canada Basin during the Barremian. Discontinuous, transgressive sandstone below the PSU is known as the Kemik Sandstone (or Kuparuk C in the subsurface), and stratigraphically above the PSU is a radioactive shale interval often referred to as the gamma ray or highly radioactive zone (HRZ). The HRZ is considered the basal part of the Aptian(?) to Campanian or Maastrichtian Hue Shale. The criteria used to delimit the PSU and the Hue Shale may differ slightly between field and subsurface investigations. In surface mapping, the top of the PSU and base of the Hue Shale is generally defined by the lowest stratigraphic occurrence of bentonite. However, in well logs, the PSU-Hue Shale contact is often defined by the HRZ where the gamma-ray response is >150 API units. In this study, the PSU is evaluated along the west side of the Canning River and two localities on the north side of the Sadlerochit Mountains where the PSU overlies the Kemik Sandstone. Vertical exposures were measured using standard sedimentologic techniques. A portable gamma-ray spectrometer (GRS) was also used to measure natural radioactivity and samples were collected for lithostratigraphy, biostratigraphy, thin section petrography, total organic carbon (TOC), Rock-Eval II, vitrinite reflectance, and X-ray Fluorescence (XRF). A correlation was made using gamma-ray data from the Canning River locality and the Beli, Canning Bl , Kavik No. 1, and W. Kavik well logs. The first apparent bentonite in the Canning River section occurs at 33.8 m. If this were considered the PSU-Hue Shale contact then the PSU would be -33.8 m (111 ft) thick. The GRS profile from the Canning River section; however, displays an abrupt increase to >150 API units at 27.8 m (~91 ft) indicating the base of the HRZ. XRF profiles also record a pronounced enrichment in Se, V, Mo, and U above this level. Only 10.2 m (~33 ft) of the HRZ was measured at the Canning River, and though stratigraphically incomplete, the TOC ranges from 2.83 4.61 wt.% (average 3.67 wt.%, n = 10). The PSU displays a wider range of TOC values from 1.02 6.15 wt.% (average 4.00 wt. %, n = 32) but this criteria cannot be used to distinguish the units due to the overlap in TOC values with the Hue Shale. Chemostratigraphically, the PSU and Hue Shale have very different signatures but due to the lithologic similarity of the units this boundary would be difficult to determine without GRS data. Previous subsurface work shows a wide range of PSU thickness (-17-69 m or 56-226 ft) within the vicinity of the Canning River. This data needs to be re-evaluated in order to resolve whether or not the same stratigraphic criteria was used to determine if the formation boundaries are internally consistent.

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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.215
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

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological Studies and Exploration→French-language works237,207→