MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2910431901 · doi:10.4095/211150

Organic petrography and Rock-Eval characteristics of the Cenozoic fossil forest litter of Axel Heiberg Island, Nunavut, and their implications for hydrocarbon generation

2000· report· en· W2910431901 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michelle I Hawke, L D Stasiuk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetrographyCenozoicGeologyLitterGeochemistryOrganic geochemistryPaleontologySource rockEcologyStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An investigation of the organic petrography and hydrocarbon generative potential of the Eocene fossil forests of Axel Heiberg Island was conducted. Huminite (39-75%) and liptinite (17-42%) are the dominant macerals. Rock-Eval pyrolysis indicates moderate hydrocarbon potential in selected samples. Neither Rock-Eval pyrolysis nor organic petrography alone can adequately assess the hydrocarbon generative potential of terrigenous source rocks. Rock-Eval pyrolysis measures anomalously high oxygen indices for unhumified samples. Organic petrography data do not necessarily directly correlate with the hydrocarbon potential of the fossil-forest sediments. When results from both methods are examined in combination, however, a more accurate interpretation of the nature of the organic matter and its hydrocarbon generative potential is possible.

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 score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score0.655

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations3
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis→French-language works237,207→