MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4237049308 · doi:10.1002/9781444304459.ch36

Diagenesis and Formation Water Chemistry of Triassic Reservoir Sandstones from Southern Tunisia

2003· other· en· W4237049308 on OpenAlexaff
S. Morad, H. N. Ben Ismail, Luiz Fernando De Ros, Ihsan S. Al‐Aasm, N‐E. Serrhini

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGroundwater and Isotope Geochemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSideriteGeologyDiagenesisGeochemistryMeteoric waterFeldsparAnkeriteAnhydriteIlliteCementation (geology)QuartzKaoliniteMineralogyClay mineralsCalcitePaleontologyGypsumHydrothermal circulationCement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fluvial Triassic reservoir subarkoses and arkoses (2409.5−2519.45 m) of the El Borma oilfield, southern Tunisia, were subjected to cementation by haematite, anatase, infiltrated clays, kaolinite and K-feldspar at shallow burial depths from meteoric waters. Subsequently, basinal brines controlled the diagenetic evolution of the sandstones and resulted initially in the precipitation of quartz overgrowths, magnesian siderite, minor ferroan magnesite and anhydrite. The enrichment of siderite in12C isotope (δCPDB= −14.5 to −9‰) results from derivation of carbon from the thermal decarboxylation of organic matter. During further burial, the precipitation of dickite and pervasive transformation of kaolinite into dickite occurred, followed by the formation of microcrystalline K-feldspar and quartz, chlorite and illite, prior to the emplacement of oil. Present day formation waters are NaCaCl brines evolved by the evaporation of seawater and water/mineral interaction and are in equilibrium with the deep burial (<3.1 km) minerals. These waters are suggested to be derived from the underlying Silurian and Devonian dolomitic mudstones.

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 score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGroundwater and Isotope GeochemistryFrench-language works237,207