Abstract: Sequence stratigraphy and palynology, Upper Missisauga Formation, Glenelg area, offshore Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Glenelg field, situated south of Sable Island in the Scotian Basin, consists primarily of gas reservoirs hosted_ in Lower Cretaceous sandstone. This study focuses on the sequence stratigraphy of the Upper Missisauga Formation, and extends from the level of the underlying 0-Marker within the Verrill Canyon Formation to the top of the overlying Naskapi Member of the Logan Canyon Formation. The study uses a combination of conventional core (sedimentology and ichnology), electrical log, and palynological data collected from 5 well sections, integrated with seismic data. Eight main lithofacies can be recognized, representing primarily deltaic and prodeltaic paleoenvironments, including the notable occurrence of tidally-influenced distributary channels with tidal rhythmites and mud-draped dune-scale crossbedding. At Glenelg, the lower part of the Upper Missisauga Formation appears to have been a fluvialdominated delta system, while the upper part was more likely wave-dominated. Lithofacies stacking patterns, palynofacies trends, and electrical log trends demonstrate the presence of one major regressive-transgressive cycle from the level of the 0-Marker (Lower Hauterivian), reaching its regressive acme (sequence boundary) in the lower part of the Upper Missisauga Formation (Barremian). The rest of the Upper Missisauga Formation becomes transgressive, continuing into the overlying Naskapi Member (Barremian-Aptian). Four smaller-scale progradational sequences occur in the same interval and strongly overprint the longer-term trends. They correlate through the Glenelg area, and are probably recognizable in wells up to I 0 km away. The occurrence of tidally influenced facies at Glenelg suggests it is close to the margin of the ancient Sable Delta system, which has important implications for the distribution of reservoir sands more distally.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".