MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393953392 · doi:10.1111/bre.12862

Sequence stratigraphy and palaeogeography of the Upper Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous in the Eastern Barents Sea

2024· article· en· W4393953392 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alina V. Mordasova, A.V. Stoupakova, А.А. Суслова, Alejandro Escalona, Dora Marín, Albina Gilmullina

Bibliographic record

VenueBasin Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalaeogeographyCretaceousPaleontologyGeologyStratigraphySequence (biology)Sequence stratigraphyBiologyStructural basinTectonicsSedimentary depositional environment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Upper Jurassic–Lower Cretaceous sedimentary rocks in the Eastern Barents Sea Basin are up to 2 km thick and represent one of the least studied Arctic intervals. Here, for the first time, we present a detailed analysis of 43,000 km of 2D seismic profiles, as well as well‐log and core data from 24 offshore wells with the aim to create a comprehensive sequence stratigraphic framework that can be integrated with the rest of the basin. Results show that (1) seven third‐order sequences and five types of clinoforms can be identified based on integrated seismic and well data. The age of each sequence was established based on published biostratigraphic investigations along with new dinocyst interpretations included in this study; (2) the deep marine basin was gradually filled with sediments coming from north, east and south as a response to HALIP, Canada Basin opening and Cimmerian uplift of Novaya Zemlya, and was preserved only in the south‐western part of the Barents Sea Basin at the end of Early Cretaceous and (3) both Eastern Barents Sea and West Siberia Basin share similarities in sedimentary environments and tectonic setting, though the spatial distribution of clastic reservoirs in Upper Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous mega‐sequence heavily depends on the source areas that require more provenance focused research. The results presented here can be used in further regional exploration in the area and to better understand the geodynamic evolution of the Greater Barents Sea 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 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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBasin ResearchSame topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207