Sedimentary facies, depositional environments and conceptual outcrop analogue (Dam Formation, early Miocene) Eastern Arabian Platform, Saudi Arabia: a new high-resolution approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents the facies and depositional environment of the early Miocene Dam Formation, Eastern Arabian platform, Saudi Arabia. Deposition of Dam Formation (Fm.) was considered as a restricted shallow marine deposition. Few studies suggest the role of sea-level change in its deposition but were without decisive substantiation. Here, we describe the facies and high-resolution model of Dam Fm. under varying depositional conditions. The depositional conditions were subjected to changing relative sea level and tectonics. High-resolution outcrop photographs, sedimentological logs, and thin sections present that the mixed carbonate–siliciclastic sequence was affected by a regional tectonics. The lower part of Dam Fm. presents the development of carbonate ramp conditions that are represented by limestones and marl. The depositional conditions fluctuated with the fall of sea level, and uplift in the region pushed the siliciclastic down-dip and covered the whole platform. The subsequent rise in sea level was not as pronounced and thus allowed the deposition of microbial laminites and stromatolitic facies. The southeast outcrops, down-dip, are more carbonate prone as compared to the northwest outcrop, which allowed the deposition of siliciclastic-prone sedimentation up-dip. All facies, architecture, heterogeneity, and deposition were controlled by tectonic events including uplift, subsidence, tilting, and syn-sedimentary faulting, consequently affecting relative sea level. The resulting conceptual outcrop model would help to improve our understanding of mixed carbonate–siliciclastic systems and serve as an analogue for other stratigraphic units in the Arabian plate and region. Our results show that Dam Fm. can be a good target for exploration in the Northern Arabian Gulf.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".