Geo-mapping for Energy and Minerals program: activities in the Sverdrup Basin, Canadian Arctic Islands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advancements in the establishment of the geological framework of the Sverdrup Basin resulting from the Geo-mapping for Energy and Minerals program can be grouped under the main topics of tectonostratigraphy, crosslinking of biostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy, integration of igneous records with newly refined stratigraphy, and effects of global climatic environments on hydrocarbon source rocks in geological time. New discoveries of volcanic ash beds throughout much of the Triassic stratigraphic section required new tectonic interpretations involving a magmatic arc northwest of the basin that was likely involved in the opening of the Amerasia Basin. Modern approaches to biostratigraphy calibrated by radiometric age dating of volcanic ash beds made global correlations to chronostratigraphic frameworks and tectonic models possible. Correlation of the stratigraphy and recent geochronology of the High Arctic large igneous province (HALIP) places the main pulse of mafic magmatism in a postrift setting. Finally, the depositional setting of source rocks in the Sverdrup Basin is explained in terms of oceanographic factors that are related to the global environment. All of these advancements, including hints of undefined and relatively young structural events, lead to the conclusion that the hydrocarbon potential of the Sverdrup Basin has not been fully tested by historical exploration drilling.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".