Hydrocarbon Exploration Potentials in the Tectonically Stable Parts of Western and Southern Parts of Iraq, NE of the Arabian Plate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of tectonic units in Iraq has been linked to the ongoing interplay between the Arabian and Eurasian plates since the Late Cretaceous era. It is believed by all researchers who were working in the considered areas that the compressional forces are decreasing southwest-wards. This opinion was achieved due to the decreasing of the amplitudes of the anticlines southwestwards and disappearing (apart from the Anah anticline) south of the Abu Jir – Euphrates Active Fault Zone as a recognizable tectonic interface delineating the stable and unstable regions within Iraq. Accordingly, the oil exploration activities were emphasized on the considered unstable parts of Iraq, because the stable parts have no anticlines on the surface. High-quality satellite images, geological maps were used with field observations to prove that there are no regions in Iraq, which are considered tectonically stable. Yet, there is attenuation for the compressional force’s southwest-wards. Hence, the classification of Iraq into the "Stable Shelf" and "Unstable Shelf" tectonic domains fails to accurately represent the actual tectonic dynamics of the region. This means that there are no tectonically stable parts in Iraq. The possibility of finding hydrocarbons, especially in Ordovician and older Cambrian rocks that have not yet been studied is discussed. A correlation between Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria has been performed, as the presence of hydrocarbon in different geological formations is concerned, with some data about the maturity of the hydrocarbons found in some drilled deep wells.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".