MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2549914731 · doi:10.1002/gj.2876

Multistage dolomitization in the Qal'eh Dokhtar Formation (Middle‐Upper Jurassic), Central Iran: petrographic and geochemical evidence

2016· article· en· W2549914731 on OpenAlexafffund
Mahnaz Sabbagh Bajestani, Asadollah Mahboubi, Ihsan S. Al‐Aasm, Reza Moussavi‐Harami, M Nadjafi

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersFerdowsi University of MashhadAmerican Academy of Sleep MedicineUniversity of Windsor
KeywordsDolomiteDolomitizationPetrographyGeologyCarbonateDiagenesisSiliciclasticMineralogyCalciteAnhydriteGeochemistryCarbonate platformThin sectionPaleontologyFaciesChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The late Jurassic Qal'eh Dokhtar Formation lithologically comprises three parts, from bottom to top, a lower sandstone unit, middle shale unit and an upper carbonate unit, which extend in a N–S direction over a wide area to the east of the Shotori Range and west of the Lut Block (Central Iran). This succession was deposited on a mixed carbonate–siliciclastic ramp. Carbonate rocks of the Qal'eh Dokhtar Formation vary from undolomitized, to partly dolomitized, to completely dolomitized. Field observations from two measured sections (the type section, 955 m thick, and the Sorond section, 639 m thick), combined with detailed petrographic and geochemical analyses, revealed the diverse types of dolomite in this formation. Five types of replacement dolomite and one type of dolomite cement were distinguished. Replacement dolomites (RD) consist of: (1) fine crystalline planar‐s (RD1); (2) medium crystalline planar‐s (RD2); (3) medium crystalline planar‐e (RD3); (4) coarse crystalline planar‐s (RD4); and (5) coarse crystalline planar‐e (RD5). Coarse crystalline planar dolomite cements (DC) were observed in low abundance and filling dissolution voids and fractures. Variation in dolomite types is mainly related to early to late diagenetic processes leading to changes in composition of the dolomitizing fluids. Replacement dolomites are non‐stoichiometric (Ca43‐56–Mg34‐45) with Sr, Mn and Fe concentrations of 41–138 ppm, 168–919 ppm and 5000–21000 ppm, respectively. These dolomites are characterized by δ18O values ranging from 0.0 to –11.8 ‰ VPDB and δ13C values of +1.1 to +3.2 ‰ VPDB. These values are depleted in δ18O relative to the postulated values for late Jurassic dolomites precipitated in equilibrium with seawater, while δ13C values are within the range of Jurassic seawater dolomite values. Fluid inclusion data of RD4, RD5 and DC yield homogenization temperatures of 72 to 118 °C. Based on petrographic, fluid inclusion microthermometric data and geochemical results, the replacement dolomites in the Qal'eh Dokhtar Formation are interpreted to have formed in the subsurface at shallow to intermediate burial depths. These dolomites were then recrystallized at increased burial depths and temperatures. Seawater was the major source of Mg2+ for early diagenetic dolomite (DR1), while Mg2+ for late diagenetic dolomites was provided from diagenesis of clay minerals in shales and mechanical compaction of mudstone in the Qal'eh Dokhtar Formation. The dolomite cement is postdated by coarsely crystalline mosaic calcite cement indicating that diagenetic fluids eventually became undersaturated with respect to dolomite and oversaturated with respect to calcite. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological JournalSame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207