Controls on East Shale Basin reservoir distribution within the Upper Devonian Duvernay Formation, Western Canada Sedimentary Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Duvernay Formation accumulated as an organic-rich basinal mudrock concurrent with shallow marine platform carbonates of the Leduc and Grosmont formations. Historically classified as a major source rock to conventional hydrocarbon production, the Duvernay evolved into an unconventional shale reservoir across Alberta, Canada much like other source rock intervals worldwide. Distributions of the Duvernay Formation are partitioned into the West and East Shale basins by a narrow, linear Leduc Formation reef complex known as the Rimbey-Meadowbrook trend. Since 2011, development has focused on the West Shale Basin, but thermal maturity trends suggest the potential for expanded shale reservoir development within the southern portion of the East Shale Basin. This study characterizes sedimentologic and stratigraphic controls on Duvernay reservoir potential to identify development “sweet spots” within the East Shale Basin. Duvernay geologic attributes mapped within this study include: oil thermal maturity, thick restricted basin facies association occurrence (at least 5-10m thick), high average TOC values (greater than 2.0 wt.%), and high net carbonate thickness (greater than 40m). The geologic attributes are predictive of production potential within horizontal wells, and the distribution of their co-occurrence suggests the potential for expanded development within the southern portion of the East Shale Basin.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".