Geochemical and Dynamic Model of Repeated Hydrothermal Injections in Two Mesozoic Successions, Provençal Domain, Maritime Alps, SE-France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A field, petrographic and geochemical study of two Triassic–Jurassic carbonate successions from the Maritime Alps, SE France, indicates that dolomitization is related to episodic fracturing and the flow of hydrothermal fluids. The mechanism governing hydrothermal fluids has been documented with the best possible spatio-temporal resolutions specifying the migration and trapping of hydrothermal fluids as a function of depth. This is rarely reported in the literature, as it requires a very wide range of disciplines from facies analysis (petrography) to very diverse and advanced chemical methods (elemental analysis, isotope geochemistry, microthermometry). In most cases, our different recognized diagenetic phases were mechanically separated on a centimetric scale and analyzed separately. The wide range of the δ18OVPDB and 87Sr/86Sr values of diagenetic carbonates reflect three main diagenetic realms, including: (1) the formation of replacive dolomites (Type I) in the eogenetic realm, (2) formation of coarse to very coarse crystalline saddle dolomites (Types II and Type III) in the shallow to deep burial mesogenetic realm, respectively, and (3) telogenetic formation of a late calcite cement (C1) in the telogenetic realm due to the uplift incursion of meteoric waters. The Triassic dolomites show a lower 87Sr/86Sr ratio (mean = 0.709125) compared to the Jurassic dolomites (mean = 0.710065). The Jurassic calcite (C1J) shows lower Sr isotopic ratios than the Triassic C1T calcite. These are probably linked to the pulses of the seafloor’s hydrothermal activity and to an increase in the continental riverine input during Late Cretaceous and Early Cenozoic times. This study adds a new insight into the burial diagenetic conditions during multiple hydrothermal flow events.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".