Triassic–Paleogene paleogeography of the Arctic: Implications for sediment routing and basin fill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Predicting the lateral distribution of petroleum play elements (reservoirs, source rocks, and seals) requires basic understanding of regional basin evolution and depositional history. In remote areas where little data are available or where the basins have undergone episodes of tectonic deformation, this understanding relies on integrated analysis of the plate tectonic framework and the resulting paleogeography. The Arctic has experienced several episodes of tectonic deformation, which fundamentally changed the basin configuration and patterns of sediment routing. Here, we present a set of paleogeographic maps highlighting these changes during the Triassic–Paleogene. In the Triassic, the Arctic was characterized by a central restricted basin, which predominantly received clastic input from the Polar Urals and Arctic Canada. The Alaskan and Siberian passive margins received clastics from continent-scale drainage systems extending into the North American craton and the central Asian fold belt, respectively. In the Jurassic, the region was dominated by rifting as the central Arctic landmass rifted away from Laurentia. In the Early Cretaceous, the northern margin of the Barents Sea underwent regional uplift resulting in new provenance areas shedding sediments southward. Compression along the Pacific margin formed continuous topography and high sediment input to the Canada Basin during the Late Cretaceous. Regression in the Canada Basin continued in the Paleogene when major rift–tip deltas formed. This overview of Arctic paleogeography demonstrates the complexity of this overall data-poor area and shows the need for integrated, regional models to understand sediment routing and stratigraphic development in such areas.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".