Origin of dolomite in the Middle Ordovician peritidal platform carbonates in the northern Ordos Basin, western China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The carbonates in the Middle Ordovician Ma 5 5 submember of the Majiagou Formation in the northern Ordos Basin are partially to completely dolomitized. Two types of replacive dolomite are distinguished: (1) type 1 dolomite, which is primarily characterized by microcrystalline (<30 µm), euhedral to subhedral dolomite crystals, and is generally laminated and associated with gypsum-bearing microcrystalline dolomite, and (2) type 2 dolomite, which is composed primarily of finely crystalline (30–100 μm), regular crystal plane, euhedral to subhedral dolomite. The type 2 dolomite crystals are truncated by stylolites, indicating that the type 2 dolomite most likely predated or developed simultaneously with the formation of the stylolites. Stratigraphic, petrographic, and geochemical data indicate that the type 1 dolomite formed from near-surface, low-temperature, and slightly evaporated seawater and that the dolomitizing fluids may have been driven by density differences and elevation-related hydraulic head. The absence of massive depositional evaporites in the dolomitized intervals indicates that dolomitization was driven by the reflux of slightly evaporated seawater. The δ18O values (−7.5 to −6.1 ‰) of type 1 dolomite are slightly lower than those of seawater-derived dolomite, suggesting that the dolomite may be related to the recrystallization of dolomite at higher temperatures during burial. The type 2 dolomite has lower δ18O values (−8.5 to −6.7 ‰) and Sr2+ concentration and slightly higher Na+, Fe2+, and Mn2+ concentrations and 87Sr/86Sr ratios (0.709188–0.709485) than type 1 dolomite, suggesting that the type 2 dolomite precipitated from modified seawater and dolomitic fluids in pore water and that it developed at slightly higher temperatures as a result of shallow burial.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".