Depositional History of the Creatceous Dina-Cummings Interval: Implications for Reservoir Development, Winter Pool, West-Central Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A significant heavy oil reservoir is hosted in Lower Cretaceous strata (Winter Heavy Oil Pool) in west-central Saskatchewan (Townships 42 and 43, Ranges 25 and 26 W3M; Fig. 1). The Winter Pool is estimated to originally have contained 566,044 mbbl of 11 to 13 API oil within the Lower Cretaceous Dina and Cummings members of the Mannville Group (Vigrass et al., 1994). This succession unconformably overlies Paleozoic carbonates and is conformably overlain by the Lloydminster Member. Lower Cretaceous deposition in the Winter area was influenced by topography on the regional sub-Cretaceous unconformity, including the Unity uplands south of the study area and major paleovalleys opening to the north-northwest (Fig. 1). The main objectives of this investigation were to (1) build a predictive depositional model for the Winter area through detailed core and wire-line log evaluation; and (2) integrate the pool-scale reservoir geology into the established regional geological setting in order to reconstruct the depositional history of Lower Cretaceous heavy oil-bearing rocks. The Winter Heavy Oil Pool study area contains 200 vertical wells from which data were analyzed, including 10 cores that were examined in detail (Fig. 1). Sedimentologic and stratigraphic characteristics were documented from analysis of grain size, sedimentary structures, biogenic structures, palynology, and wire-line log data. Eight sedimentary facies were defined and four facies associations interpreted based on genetic characteristics and lithogical relationships assessed during core analysis.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".