Structural Evolution of the Black Sea Basin Using 2D Sectioned and 3D Computational Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent hydrocarbon discoveries in the Black Sea Basin (BSB) rekindled debate on whether the basin rifted open as one east-west oriented basin, or as two separate basins named Eastern and Western Black Sea Basins. Supporting the two-basin idea is the semi-parallel ridge and depression geometry of the BSB with NW-SE orientation in the eastern portion of the Black Sea Basin, and W-E orientation in the western portion of the Black Sea Basin. On the other hand, interpretations for a single basin configuration are supported by the regional structure of the BSB being consistent with geodynamic models of rifting of the basin by slab roll-back about a hinge point located on the eastern edge of the basin.To help resolve the tectonic uncertainty, we built a new structural framework for the BSB by reinterpreting 24 long-offset 2D seismic lines acquired by GWL in 2011. This in turn allowed us to develop two sectioned 2D computational models representing the western and eastern parts of the BSB to model the variation in the kinematics of the basin formation. Our interpretations of continuous normal, inverted, and strike slip fault systems that define the ridge and depression geometry lead us to support a model in which the BSB opened as a single basin. The 2D sectioned models were extended to 3D to test whether the rifting occurred with increasing velocities towards west. We compare our findings with the structural elements that we interpreted on the seismic sections such as strike slip fault systems that have been active throughout the basin formation and the tectonic inversion of the Late Eocene era. Ultimately, this provides better insight of the timing of all the tectonic events of the BSB during the extensional and subsequent compressional stages of the basin’s evolution.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".