Dolomite Crystal Architecture: Genetic Implications for the Origin of the Tertiary Dolostones of the Cayman Islands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Dolostones in the Cayman Formation on Grand Cayman and Cayman Brac, which are the product of two and possibly three phases of dolomitization, are formed of very small (< 100 μm) but architecturally complex dolomite crystals that are characterized by planar and non-planar boundaries, corrosional internal discontinuities, oscillatory low-Ca calcian dolomite (LCD) and high-Ca calcian dolomite (HCD) zoning, and syntaxial (?) overgrowths. The dolomite overgrowths, which grew on earlier formed but corroded rhombs, increased crystal size and modified crystal shape and, hence, caused significant textural modifications. The size and shape of the overgrowths that developed preferentially on those crystal faces that formed the walls of micropores was controlled by the competition for growth space with neighboring crystals. Interpretation of this textural information suggests that the development of planar and non-planar dolomite boundaries crystals is probably related to critical supersaturation levels rather than critical roughening temperatures. The recognition that individual dolomite crystals, irrespective of their size, may be architecturally heterogeneous carries important implications for dolomite genesis. Many interpretations of finely crystalline dolostones, for example, have tacitly assumed that they formed through one phase of dolomitization. In the Cayman Formation, however, dolomite crystals as small as 10 μm are characterized by internal heterogeneities that record their development through multiple, time-separated growth phases. Any model developed to explain dolomitization must take this into account. The interpretation of chemical data, for example, must consider the multiple-stage development of the dolostones that is evident from their internal zoning and discontinuities.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".