Evaluating new fault‐controlled hydrothermal dolomitization models: Insights from the Cambrian Dolomite, Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fault‐controlled hydrothermal dolomitization in tectonically complex basins can occur at any depth and from different fluid compositions, including ‘deep‐seated’, ‘crustal’ or ‘basinal’ brines. Nevertheless, many studies have failed to identify the actual source of these fluids, resulting in a gap in our knowledge on the likely source of magnesium of hydrothermal dolomitization. With development of new concepts in hydrothermal dolomitization, the study aims in particular to test the hypothesis that dolomitizing fluids were sourced from either seawater, ultramafic carbonation or a mixture between the two by utilizing the Cambrian Mount Whyte Formation as an example. Here, the large‐scale dolostone bodies are fabric‐destructive with a range of crystal fabrics, including euhedral replacement (RD1) and anhedral replacement (RD2). Since dolomite is cross‐cut by low amplitude stylolites, dolomitization is interpreted to have occurred shortly after deposition, at a very shallow depth (<1 km). At this time, there would have been sufficient porosity in the mudstones for extensive dolomitization to occur, and the necessary high heat flows and faulting associated with Cambrian rifting to transfer hot brines into the near surface. While the δ 18 O water and 87 Sr/ 86 Sr ratios values of RD1 are comparable with Cambrian seawater, RD2 shows higher values in both parameters. Therefore, although aspects of the fluid geochemistry are consistent with dolomitization from seawater, very high fluid temperature and salinity could be suggestive of mixing with another, hydrothermal fluid. The very hot temperature, positive Eu anomaly, enriched metal concentrations, and cogenetic relation with quartz could indicate that hot brines were at least partially sourced from ultramafic rocks, potentially as a result of interaction between the underlying Proterozoic serpentinites and CO 2 ‐rich fluids. This study highlights that large‐scale hydrothermal dolostone bodies can form at shallow burial depths via mixing during fluid pulses, providing a potential explanation for the mass balance problem often associated with their genesis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".