MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3017702270

Depositional Environment and Provenance of the Dina Formation, Provost Oil Field, East Central Alberta, and a Hydrocarbon Distribution Within

2003· article· en· W3017702270 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joseph Kidston

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedimentary depositional environmentProvenanceGeologyOil fieldField (mathematics)HydrocarbonGeochemistryDistribution (mathematics)Hydrology (agriculture)Petroleum engineeringGeomorphologyGeotechnical engineeringChemistryStructural basin
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Dina formation, late Barremian to late Aptian, is the basal unit of the Mannville Group in east central Alberta, and the primary oil producing unit of the Provost oil field. In Section 23, Township 36 6W4 (part of the Belshill Lake paleo channel), well logs from two wells suggest the Dina formation is ~21 m thick. Physical and biogenic sedimentary structures preserved in cores from these two wells indicate the upper ~14 metres of the Dina formation were deposited in an estuarine environment, and lithofacies show an upwards increase in marine influence, grading upwards from marine influenced channel deposits on the bottom (of the cored interval) to moderately burrowed tidal flat (and channel) deposits on top. Oil stained sandstone beds in the two cores indicate oil distribution in the Dina formation is lithofacies dependent, and concentrated within channel sands of the upper lithofacies. The presence of accessory zircon, muscovite, and feldspar grains suggest a Canadian Shield provenance for the Dina formation. Pages: 130 Supervisor: Grant Wach

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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.155
Teacher spread0.151 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis→French-language works237,207→