MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4322005404 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu23-7509

Geometries and kinematics of fault systems in the Flemish Pass Basin: Insights from the Bay du Nord 3D seismic survey, offshore Newfoundland, Eastern Canada

2023· preprint· en· W4322005404 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ai Gusti Guna, Alexander L. Peace

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyRiftFault (geology)Structural basinPaleontologyMesozoicSubmarine pipelineTectonicsExtensional faultSeismologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Flemish Pass Basin is a Mesozoic basin offshore Newfoundland in Eastern Canada. This basin has proven petroleum systems, and formed via multiple rifting episodes as a part of the wider North Atlantic rift system during Pangaea’s disintegration. We utilise the Bay du Nord 3D seismic survey to derive 3D fault models, which include throws profile. The aim of this was to investigate fault nucleation and growth history, and how this may relate to previous interpretations of multi-stage rifting, plus the possible role of structural inheritance in controlling basin evolution.Through our interpretation of the 3D volume, we identified three fault systems (1: NE-SW, 2: NW-SE & 3: NNE-SSW), plus one distinctive basin-bounding fault (trending E-W). The NE-SW basement-involved system typically comprises 12 – 17 km long faults dipping 10–25o, with throws of 250–1250 m. This fault system exhibits throws of 600–1250 m between the hanging wall and footwall of the interpreted Pre–Mesozoic cut–off horizon. We interpret this observation of large throw values to relate to the initiation of extension following the Pre-Mesozoic horizon, which likely coincides with the previously interpreted regional Late Triassic–Early Jurassic rift phase. Moreover, although lower throws (≤200 m) were recorded between the Base Upper Tithonian and Late Jurassic horizons, evidence of reactivation of this fault system is interpreted from the throw values, which range from 300–750 m between the Base Upper Tithonian and the Aptian horizons. We interpret this to result from further reactivation due to the previously interpreted 2nd regional rift phase in the Late Jurassic – Early Cretaceous. The NW-SE fault system constitutes 3 – 10 km long planar normal faults, with throws ranging from 50–300 m scattered between the Base Upper Tithonian and Late Cretaceous cut-off lines. We interpret that this fault set propagated downward and linked with pre-existing basement-involved faults, and that the nucleation of this fault set occurred during the 2nd rift phase. The NNE-SSW planar normal fault system is interpreted to be younger based on stratigraphic relationships and comprises 2–8 km long faults. This fault system was interpreted to correspond with the 3rd rift phase during the Cretaceous, and has throw values between the Base Upper Tithonian and the Base Cretaceous horizons ranging from 100–350 m. Finally, the distinct E-W striking basin-bounding normal fault revealed throws of 250–4000 m. This fault acts as a sub-basin confinement on the southern part of the 3D survey area, with throw variation distributed in the Pre-Mesozoic horizon from 1000–4000 m and between Base Upper Tithonian–Aptian Cretaceous horizons with values of 250-800 m.Overall, our results demonstrate that: 1) in the Flemish Pass basin, there are three fault systems, and one distinctive basin-bounding fault, all of which display variable throw values corresponding to three rift phases (Late Triassic-Early Jurassic, Late Jurassic–Early Cretaceous, and Cretaceous) and 2) pre-existing structures influenced basin development by providing an initial seed for subsequent faulting and may have possibly formed a mechanical link aiding propagation.

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)0.001
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.184 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological formations and processes→French-language works237,207→