MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2957655123 · doi:10.1002/gj.3580

Geochemistry characteristics and dolomitization mechanism of the Upper Cambrian dolomite, eastern Ordos Basin, China

2019· article· en· W2957655123 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersState Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Reservoir Geology and ExploitationNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDolomiteDolomitizationGeologyOrdovicianGeochemistryDiagenesisOutcropPaleozoicCarbonateMicriteMineralogyPaleontologyStructural basinChemistryFacies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are widely developed carbonate formations in the lower Palaeozoic, Ordos Basin, China. However, previous studies have paid more attention to the Ordovician formations and largely ignored the Cambrian formations, which also have a larger sediment thickness. Recently, with the continuous discovery of dolomite gas fields in the Ordovician Majiagou formation, more investigations have begun to focus on the deeper dolomite in the Cambrian Sanshanzi Formation (Є 3 s). This study looks into the origin of the dolomite through a combination of petrology, major–trace elements, and stable isotope and rare earth element (REE) analysis of samples from five outcrops. The results show that the main dolomite types in the study area are dolarenite (Type 1), micrite‐fine crystalline dolomite (Type 2), and medium crystalline dolomite (Type 3). The δ 13 C values and δ 18 O values of each dolomite formation are close to those of seawater‐derived dolomite and have slightly higher Na 2+ concentrations, suggesting that dolomite formation is closely related to the denser seawater. The REE compositions are characterized by enrichment for light REEs and depletion for heavy REEs, exhibiting an apparent negative Eu anomaly and a slight negative Ce anomaly, indicating that the dolomites of the Є 3 s may form in a weak‐reduction to the weak‐oxidation environment. The total REE (ΣREE) concentrations of Type 3 dolomites are lower than other types, suggesting that those dolomites may mean that the REEs are lost during the diagenesis. Type 1 dolomite has lower MgO and CaO values and a higher Mn 2+ concentration than the other two types of dolomites, indicating that Type 1 dolomite suffered the action of atmospheric fresh water. Type 2 dolomite has lower Mg and Ca values than Type 3 dolomite, suggesting that Type 3 dolomite has a higher dolomitization degree. Further study into the combined palaeogeographical background confirms the dolomitization model of the study area: Type 1 and Type 2 dolomites may have been formed by penecontemporaneous or seepage–reflux dolomitization during early‐stage diagenesis. Subsequently, stratigraphic uplift lead to the Type 1 dolomite suffering the action of atmospheric fresh water, but there was no dorag dolomitization. Type 2 dolomite became the main dolomite type by seepage–reflux dolomitization in this period. Later, Type 2 dolomite was converted into Type 3 dolomite during progressive burial.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.184 · 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