Physical and chemical analysis of the siliceous skeletons in six sponges of two groups (demospongiae and hexactinellida)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The siliceous skeletons of six hexactinellids and demosponges were compared using a series of physical and chemical tests. The sponges were two hermit-crab sponges (Class Demospongiae, family Suberitidae), one from Scotland, Suberites domuncula, and the other, Pseudospongosorites suberitoides, from the Gulf of Mexico, and four hexactinellids, Hyalonema sp., Euplectella aspergillum, Rhabdocalyptus dawsoni, and Aphrocallistes vastus. The operating hypothesis was that differences in the amorphous hydrated silica skeletons in Demosponges and Hexactinellids might prove taxonomically useful. Physical properties studied included SEM, glass density, glass transition temperature (Tg), TG/DTA to determine water content, and FTIR spectra. Chemical determinations were made using energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence (EDXRF). Spicular skeletal material is deposited in concentric layers around the axial canal. With the exception of differences at several bands in the IR spectra, the siliceous skeletons in demosponges and hexactinellids are largely indistinguishable. Density was similar in all sponges (range 2.03-2.13 g/cc) and similar to the density of opal (SiO2 x 1.5H2O) (mean = 2.09 g/cc). IR spectra were similar, with prominent absorption bands at 460-470, 800, and 1,090-1,100 cm(-1) (due to different vibrational modes of Si-O-Si linkages) and at 1,650 and 3,450-3,560 cm(-1) (due to water). The skeletons of all six showed similar spectra to that of silica gel both before and after heating to 1,200 degrees C. Water comprised 10-14% of the skeleton by weight, slightly higher in the demosponges. Average spicule chemical composition was 85.2% SiO2, 12.3% water, and 2.5% other elements (mainly S, Al, K, Ca, and Na). The percent amounts of Si did not differ significantly between the demosponges and the hexactinellids.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".