PALEOENVIRONMENTAL INTERPRETATIONS BASED ON FORAMINIFERAL ABUNDANCE BIOZONES, MAYO LIMESTONE, TRINIDAD, WEST INDIES, INCLUDING ALPHA AND BETA DIVERSITIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many carbonate sections are characterized by monotonous successions that mask subtle changes in paleoenvironmental parameters. Foraminiferal populations, however, are more sensitive to environmental parameters and commonly reflect these subtle changes. The accuracy of paleoenvironmental interpretations based on foraminiferal assemblages depends on the precise delineation and interpretation of abundance biozones (ABs). Samples rich in foraminifera were taken from four outcrops (OC1–OC4, oldest to youngest) of the Mayo limestone bioherm (Tamana Formation) that comprised 6–8 limestone-marl alternations each. Bottom-up SHE Analysis for Biozone Identification (SHEBI) indicated the samples to be from seven ABs (AB1–AB7). The percentage of the foraminiferal assemblage as planktonic specimens (%P) ranged from 5%–25% and was generally lower in AB1, AB3, AB5, and AB7 than in intervening biozones. This indicates deposition at shallow- to mid-neritic paleodepths (∼20–55 m) during a series of transgressions and regressions. Per sample (point) diversities, measured using the information function H, ranged from 1.67 to 2.86. Total within-AB diversities (α diversities), were calculated from the final value of H and expressed as the effective number of species SE [ = eH]; these ranged from 7.8 to 18.4. Changes in diversity across AB boundaries (β diversities) were calculated using the percentage change in SE, and ranged from −44% to 137%. Not all β diversities were significant, indicating that paleodepth was not the only control on α diversity. Fluctuations in the percentage abundances of Elphidium spp., Pseudononion atlanticum, and Amphistegina sp. show that changes in the organic matter flux also exerted some control, being lowest in the Amphistegina-rich AB3.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".