Clay composition and diagenesis in organic-rich shale: A case study of Duvernay Formation, West Canadian Sedimentary Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clay minerals such as illite and smectite are common constituents of sedimentary rocks, especially mudstones, and have a significant influence on the reservoir geomechanical and petrophysical properties (Boles, 1979; Brown et al., 2001; Tolhurst et al., 2002; Dong et al., 2018). The illite content of mixed-layer clays can be used to calibrate the thermal history of the basin (Pevear, 1999). These factors make clay mineral and related reactions important in petroleum development and exploration. Hower et al. (1976) showed that smectite-rich mixed-layer clay converts to illite-rich clay with increasing burial depth and temperature in Gulf Coast sediments. However, our examination of clay minerals in the organic-rich shale of the Upper Devonian Duvernay Formation in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin reveals patterns of clay diagenesis that are inconsistent with Gulf of Mexico models. Our study examines whether the illite-smectite conversion model developed for organic-lean shales applies to organic- rich shales and considers other factors that may affect this conversion. Two alternative hypotheses are considered: that smectite never entered the basin, or the smectite converted to illite at abnormal shallow depth through microbial catalysis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".