MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597477978 · doi:10.1306/011817dig17029

Intact seismic-scale platforms and ramps in the Lower to Middle Jurassic of Morocco: Implications for stratal anatomy and lithofacies partitioning

2017· article· en· W2597477978 on OpenAlexaff
Óscar Merino‐Tomé, Giovanna Della Porta, Aurélien Pierre, J.A.M. Kenter, Christophe Durlet

Bibliographic record

VenueAAPG Bulletin · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geophysical Studies Worldwide
Canadian institutionsImperial Oil (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyPaleontologyEchelon formationScale (ratio)SeismologyStructural basinCartographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The Jurassic carbonate platforms of the central High Atlas in Morocco are well known for several high-quality outcrops. In the central High Atlas, there are two complementary locations that offer critical lessons for our understanding of Jurassic carbonate system evolution in extensional basins: a Lower Jurassic high-relief, carbonate platform with steep slopes that developed on the footwall of a rotating fault block in an active half-graben (Djebel Bou Dahar [DBD]) and an upper Lower to Middle Jurassic low-angle prograding carbonate ramp rich in ooids (Amellago ramp [AR]). The DBD and AR outcrops provide superbly exposed, structurally intact, and fully accessible platform to basin transects. They provide valuable analogs for depositional geometries at reservoir and seismic scales that are highly relevant for hydrocarbon exploration and production. The DBD serves as an analog for isolated carbonate platforms developed in rift basins (particularly synrift carbonate platforms with a coral calcareous sponge and microbial boundstone facies belt in the upper slope and margin). The AR provides one of the rare examples whereby a large-scale oolitic ramp can be examined in great detail, providing an analog for a range of oolitic reservoirs, mostly Mesozoic.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAAPG BulletinSame topicGeological and Geophysical Studies WorldwideFrench-language works237,207