MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048569000 · doi:10.1086/314417

Unusual Secondary Ca‐Mg‐Carbonate‐Kerolite Deposits in Basaltic Caves, Kauai, Hawaii

2000· article· en· W2048569000 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Léveillé, W. S. Fyfe, Fred J. Longstaffe

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Geology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeochemistryCalciteBasaltAragoniteCaveCarbonateMagnesiteDolomiteCarbonate mineralsMineralMineralogyMagnesiumChemistryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aragonite, calcite, monohydrocalcite, dolomite, magnesite, hydromagnesite, and talc‐like kerolite have been identified in speleothems from basaltic caves on the island of Kauai, Hawaii. These secondary minerals have crystallized in the presence of freshwater seeping from the basaltic host rock, and the mineralization process is ongoing at some locations. The deposits are extremely variable in macroscopic character, ranging from millimeter‐thin, powdery coatings to hard crusts several centimeters thick. Many deposits are associated with actively forming microbial mats, and stromatolitic structures are common in the thicker deposits. Formation of the mineral deposits is a result of a combination of direct precipitation from solution by evaporation and CO2 degassing, alteration of precursor minerals, and (or) microbial processes and physicochemical conditions within the mats. These unusual deposits provide important insights into the mineralogy and geochemistry of low‐temperature alteration and carbonation of terrestrial basalts and the potential role of microbes in such processes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of GeologySame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207