Sedimentary petrology of the Lower Cretaceous in the Naskapi N-30 and Sambro I-29 wells, Scotian basin, offshore eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Sambro I-29 and Naskapi N-30 wells are located about 25 km apart on the La Have Platform on the central Scotian Shelf. The Lower Cretaceous Logan Canyon and Missisauga formations are ~ 700 m thick in Naskapi N-30 and~ 600 m thick in the more proximal Sambro I-29 well. Sedimentology and sedimentary petrography have been studied on a 9-m-long conventional core from the uppermost Missisauga Formation in Naskapi N-30 and petrographic studies were made of selected drill cuttings samples from Sambro I-29. The purpose of this work was to understand better the provenance and diagenesis of the Lower Cretaceous sands tones in the western part of the Scotian basin and to make comparisons of provenance with previously studied wells farther east (Alma and Glenelg fields, GSC Open File 4836; Peskowesk A-99, GSC Open File 5383). This Open File documents data collected in this study and provides preliminary interpretations. The analysed sandstones differ from those farther east in the Scotian basin in their low abundance of feldspar, predominance of polycrystalline quartz in the lithic fraction, and lack of paragonite and chromite. They also differ in bulk geochemistry. On the other hand, they show strong mineralogical similarities to the Chaswood Formation of central Nova Scotia, notably in the composition of muscovite, ilmenite, monazite, and biotite. Based on the correlation of sand supply to the Chaswood Formation in central Nova Scotia with sand supply to the Naskapi- Sambro deltas and published biostratigraphic data, a correlation of the major units within the Chaswood Formation with offshore stratigraphy is proposed. Major sandy intervals in the upper Mississauga Formation, Cree Member and Marmora Member probably correlated with thick sands in the upper part of seismic packet 1, seismic packet 3 and seismic packet 4 of the Chaswood Formation.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".