{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02893436838390967, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014114326040931546, 'mean_word_length': 5.358744394618834, '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}}
The Carbonate Platforms of Neotethys: a Comparison Study between Apulia and Eratosthenes Platforms

Summary Apulian Platform has been developed on the passive margin of Africa, the Adria or Apulia margin. It is characterised by platforms and deep-sea basins controlled by the Norian-Liassic rifting phase of the Tethyan rifting (Bertottti, 1993). The Eratosthenes carbonate platform sits on top of a thicker continental block (Moho depths of 32–35 km, Feld et al. 2017) compared to adjacent basins and would thus have been subject to lower rates of subsidence than the Levant Basin ( Gardosh et al., 2010 ). This differential subsidence between crustal segments of different nature is well described for other Mediterranean passive margins. The Eratosthenes and Apulian platforms remain wholly carbonate (“clean”). Seismic interpretation suggests that the infilling adjacent to both the Eratosthenes and the Apulia carbonate platform consists of gravity and mass transport complexes (MTCs) as well as deep pelagic sediments that onlap the paleo-slopes of the Mesozoic platforms. The mechanisms that triggered these large slope failures (maximum width 15–30 km) could be a combination of several parameters including (a) rapid sedimentary loading that can generate excess pore pressure, (b) earthquakes associated with the major geodynamic events, and (c) erosion of older successions due to fluctuations in sea level.