Deep hydrothermal dolomitization in a superimposed basin that experienced multiple tectonic-thermal events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Hydrothermal dolomite, due to its significant impact on reservoir quality and complex mineralization, has received significant attention for many decades. Regional studies in many superimposed basins have produced extensive petrographic and geochemical data sets, and, together with recent technological advancements, provide a robust framework for comparative analysis. Compilation of published data supplemented by new petrographic, rare earth element, and U-Pb dating data enabled a meta-analysis of the geodynamic settings, fluid sources, paleohydrologic models, and growth processes of the interpreted hydrothermal dolomite. This study confirms that the interpreted hydrothermal dolomite in the Tarim Basin primarily originated from deep-sourced hydrothermal fluids that underwent extensive water–rock reaction. However, variations in hydrothermal fluids are noted across different periods and regions. The δ18O values of saddle dolomites suggest an upward, unidirectional, pulsating migration of fluids (rather than large-scale thermal fluid convection), which led to hydrothermal modification recrystallization. This study is the first to document that parts of the interpreted hydrothermal dolomites in the Tarim Basin formed during the Late Devonian–Permian. Micrometer-scale growth zones in hydrothermal dolomites correspond to changes in fluid chemistry, which may be related to rapid precipitation under conditions of limited water-rock interaction during episodic pulses of hydrothermal fluid and the host rock. Hydrothermal dolomitization can occur at various stages of superimposed basins, not just shortly after deposition in an extensional tectonic setting. Under favorable geodynamic conditions, the distribution of hydrothermal dolomite over time and space was primarily controlled by fault movements.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".