Petrology, Mineralogy and Geochemistry of the Musquodoboit E-23 well, Scotian Shelf
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large cuttings samples were collected from key horizons at the time of drilling the Musquodoboit E-23 well. Most of the samples studied in detail were from the Logan Canyon and Missisauga formations. Single-lithology chips were separated from these cuttings and the samples that were large enough were analyzed geochemically for major and trace elements. Heavy minerals and lithic fragments were separated with tetrabromoethane and the compositions of heavy minerals including tourmaline, chromite and garnet were determined by electron microprobe. Mudstone samples from the Logan Canyon and Missisauga formations are geochemically similar among themselves and resemble mudstones from the nearby Alma field. A muddy sandstone from the basal Banquereau Formation is geochemically distinct. The Logan Canyon and Upper Missisauga formations have a much higher proportion of low-Mg tourmaline, characteristic of a granitic source, than the Middle Missisauga Formation, in which tourmaline of metamorphic origin predominates. The absence of low-Mg tourmaline in the Glenelg and North Triumph fields suggests that this mineral was supplied by a Chaswood Formation river crossing central Nova Scotia from New Brunswick. Near the base of the Middle Missisauga Formation, many of the analyzed garnets closely match analyses from both the South Mountain batholith and Meguma Group metasedimentary rocks, but similar garnets are rare at higher stratigraphic levels. Tremolite and low-Fe diopside are each present at two horizons in Musquodoboit E-23, but have not been recognised elsewhere in the Lower Cretaceous of the Scotian basin, from which we have more than 4000 electron microprobe analyses of detrital minerals. They are sourced from thermally metamorphosed impure limestones, possibly from the inner Scotian Shelf. Lower Cretaceous sediments in Musquodoboit E-23 were supplied principally by a large Cabot Strait river that brought sediment to the entire Sable sub-basin. Detrital minerals provide some evidence for lesser local supply of sediment from the rivers that deposited the Chaswood Formation of central Nova Scotia.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".