MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981703670 · doi:10.4095/289629

Lithofacies and diagenesis of selected conventional core from Jurassic and Early Cretaceous terrigenous clastic rocks, Scotian Basin

2011· report· en· W2981703670 on OpenAlexaff
K M Gould, Atika Karim, David J. W. Piper, Georgia Pe‐Piper

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrigenous sedimentClastic rockGeologyDiagenesisCretaceousPaleontologyStructural basinGeochemistryPetrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Open File presents lithologic and petrographic detail from conventional cores from wells located across the Scotian Basin; specifically, from the Abenaki subbasin: the Mic Mac D-89, Mic Mac J-77, Mic Mac H-86, North Banquereau I-13, and Wyandot E-53 wells; from the Sable subbasin: the Marmora P-35, Onondaga O-95, Sable Island C-67, South Desbarres O-76 and Wenonah J-75 wells; and from the edge of the Shelburne subbasin: the Mohican I-100 well. Core samples from the Mic Mac D-89, Wyandot E-53 and Mohican I-100 wells are from the Middle Jurassic Mohican Formation; the remaining wells sampled either the extreme top of the Late Jurassic Mic Mac Formation or the Early Cretaceous Missisauga and Logan Canyon formations For all cores, except those in the Mohican Formation, detailed core logs are presented that use a lithofacies scheme previously applied to many other wells in the Scotian Basin. Diagenetic minerals have been studied in petrographic thin section, with selected minerals also studied by electron microprobe. Porosity and permeability data from core plug analysis have been compiled. Middle Jurassic Mohican Formation terrigenous sediment facies differ from those of the Early Cretaceous, reflecting the more arid climate conditions at that time. Other than the presence of early diagenetic anhydrite in the Mohican I-100 well, diagenetic minerals in sandstones are similar to those found in Early Cretaceous sandstones. A brief analysis of the differences in reservoir quality between the Sable and Abenaki subbasins shows that the Abenaki subbasin has proportionally better reservoir quality in the Cree Member, but proportionally poorer quality in the Middle Member of the Missisauga Formation and in the uppermost Jurassic Mic Mac Formation, compared to the Sable subbasin. In both subbasins, excellent reservoir quality is associated with chlorite rims on framework grains. Loss of reservoir quality is commonly related to carbonate cements, which are sparse to absent in the Cree Member and the Upper Member of the Missisauga Formation in the Abenaki subbasin. Lithofacies in the two subbasins are in part controlled by rates of subsidence and sediment supply, which were both greater in the Sable subbasin. River-mouth sandstones, which form the best quality reservoirs, are thicker in the Sable subbasin, where greater subsidence created greater accommodation. Widespread tidal-flat facies in the Abenaki subbasin host poorer quality reservoir sandstones.

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 score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils→French-language works237,207→