MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3176193877 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-13537

Structural style of the Kashan-Ardestan syn-tectonic sedimentary basin in Central Iran, Arabian-Eurasian collision zone

2021· article· en· W3176193877 on OpenAlexaff
Farzad Gholamian, M Najafi, J. Kim Welford, Abdolreza Ghods, Mohammad Reza Bakhtiari

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyStructural basinSedimentary rockRiftPaleontologyClastic rockSubductionThermal subsidenceSource rockLithosphereTectonicsSedimentary basinGeochemistryCollision zoneContinental shelfGeomorphologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Kashan-Ardestan sedimentary basin in Central Iran was initially formed by back-arc extension due to the subduction of Neo-Tethys oceanic lithosphere beneath the Iranian Plate during Eocene time. Following rifting and the onset of the Arabian-Central Iranian continental collision in the Oligocene, the basin was infilled by a sequence of continental clastic and evaporitic sediments referred to as the Lower Red Formation. Post-rift cooling and thermal subsidence led to the development of a shallow marine environment for the accumulation of Qom Formation carbonates and shales in the late Oligocene–early Miocene. The Qom Formation is the most significant hydrocarbon target in Central Iran, containing both source and reservoir rocks. The continental collision triggered the reactivation of pre-existing normal and strike-slip fault systems. The basin was subjected to compressional tectonism during the deposition of the Miocene Upper Red Formation and overlying Plio-Quaternary sediments. This long-lasting and multi-episodic tectono-sedimentary evolution of the Kashan-Ardestan Basin has led to the formation of a complex structural style, which must be resolved before petroleum system modeling and drilling of prospects can take place. In this study, several transverse and longitudinal 2D seismic lines were converted to depth and interpreted to define the deep-seated geometry of structures in the basin. The seismic lines were tied to the data from three exploration wells, reaching depths of ~ 4 km. In addition, ~ 15000 gravity and magnetic stations, covering the entire Kashan-Ardestan Basin, were integrated into our model. The results of our study indicate that two major strike-slip fault systems, including the Qom-Zefreh and Ardestan faults in the south and the Gazu fault zone in the north, control the geometry and evolution of the Kashan-Ardestan Basin. In this basin, the rheological profiles of the sedimentary sequences control the folding style and deformation mechanisms. Both basement-involved and thin-skinned faults developed in the basin and formed different types of fault-related anticlines. The reactivation of pre-existing strike-slip faults has produced positive flower structures during compression. There is some evidence that the Navab Anticline in the SW developed as a forced fold, with basement involvement. In addition, several thin-skinned detachment folds are observed above the evaporites of the Lower Red Formation at the base of the sedimentary cover. The Lower Red Formation thins and pinches out toward the eastern limit of the basin, where the Qom carbonates directly overly the Eocene volcanic basement. Meanwhile, the Upper Red Formation thins toward the north and northeastern limits of the basin, and towards the crests of anticlines. These syntectonic thickness variations allow us to define the geometric evolution of the Kashan-Ardestan Basin through geologic times, allowing for the burial history of the source rock and timing of trap formation at the reservoir level to be described.

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 score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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