{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02910266774454325, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.655913978494624, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Detailed relationships between platform and pelagic carbonates (Barremian, SE France)

Abstract Field observations suggest that prograding bioclastic wedges of depositional sequences in outer-platform settings correlate with packages of basinal limestone beds thought to represent third-order lowstand systems tracts. The rule is apparently the same for higher-frequency cycles within these sequences, since basinal beds seem to correlate with bioclastic clinoforms while basinal marly interbeds root between clinoforms. If confirmed in other sequences, it would suggest that limestone beds, or bundles of beds, in this basin have the same ‘lowstand’ significance ‘highstand’ vs intervening marls from second- to sixth-order cycles, whatever the source of the carbonate (periplatform oozes or planktonic rain). A major remaining challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which high-frequency sea-level changes, as documented in outer-platform bioclastic wedges, correlate so well with the changes in nannoflora (nannoconus-rich beds vs coccolith-rich marly interbeds) thought to be climatic in the pelagic Vocontian Trough series. Is it glacio-eustasy and how does it work to make the deep-water Cretaceous limestone-marl alternation?