"Collingwood" Strata in South-central Ontario - A Petrophysical Chemostratigraphic Approach to Comparison and Correlation Using Geophysical Borehole Logs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A petrophysical chemostratigraphic comparison and correlation of “Collingwood” strata across central Ontario was conducted using geophysical borehole log data and core produced by the Ontario Oil Shale Assessment Project (OSAP). Outcrop sections were also measured, sampled and described. The resultant geophysical correlation was compared to sections in the Michigan Peninsula. Microfacies analyses and a biostratigraphic review were also conducted. The dark organic rich rocks collectively referred to as the “Collingwood Member, Lindsay Formation”, in Ontario were deposited during the progressive drowning of a mid to late Ordovician carbonate ramp. Due to variability in ramp palaeotopography, condensation intensity (sedimentation stress) varied across the region during drowning. This variability resulted in regional differences in Collingwood section thickness and facies. Less condensed carbonate rich “Collingwood” sections are associated with palaeotopographic highs such as the Algonquin Arch in Ontario and grade upwards and outwards (off-arch) from predominantly deep-shelf carbonates (microfacies type SMF 9, FZ 2 – open sea shelf –deep undatherm below wave base) to more condensed deeper water shale rich strata (microfacies type SMF 3, FZ1- basin fondotherm below oxygen level) – that contain abundant graptolites and Triarthrus trilobites.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".