3D stratigraphic architecture, sedimentary budget, and sources of the Lower and Middle Triassic strata of western Canada: evidence for a major basin structural reorganization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focuses on the Lower–Middle Triassic Montney, Sunset Prairie, Doig and Halfway formations from the foreland basin of the Canadian Cordillera (Alberta and British Columbia). Based on core and outcrop descriptions, the correlation of 400 wells, and on mineralogical analyses, this study interprets the basin-scale, 3D-stratigraphic architecture of these formations and discusses the controls on its evolution. Well correlation highlights four sequences (1–4) interpreted to occur in two second-order cycles (A and B). In this work, the Early Triassic Montney Formation and the early Middle Triassic Sunset Prairie Formation are interpreted to consist of three third-order sequences (1–3) related to the first second-order cycle (cycle A). The Middle Triassic Doig and Halfway formations are interpreted to consist of a fourth sequence (4) related to a second second-order cycle (cycle B). Integration of the stratigraphic surfaces with previously published biostratigraphic analyses emphasizes a major time gap of c. 2 myr between these two cycles, interpreted to record a major reorganization of the basin. Mineralogical analyses suggest that during cycle A, sediments were delivered from the east (Canadian Shield); whereas in cycle B, additional sources from the west (proto-Canadian Cordillera) occurred. This study shows that the stratigraphic architecture evolution was affected by the structural heritage of the basin and continental geodynamic evolution. This study provides a large-scale understanding on the controls of the stratigraphic architecture of the Lower and Middle Triassic strata, suggesting local and regional controls on the reservoir extension and unconventional play configuration within these strata.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".