MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065413388 · doi:10.1080/01490450490454001

Biomineralization by<i>Gallionella</i>

2004· article· he· W2065413388 on OpenAlexaff
Rolf Hallberg, F. G. Ferris

Bibliographic record

VenueGeomicrobiology Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languagehe
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMine drainage and remediation techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHematiteCrystallitePyriteStoichiometryMineralization (soil science)CrystallinityMineralogyChemical engineeringBiomineralizationMaterials scienceChemistryCrystallographyNitrogen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new environmental scanning electron microscopic (ESEM) technique at low vacuum (5 torr) and 99% humidity, where the sample never has been exposed to high vacuum and coating of carbon or gold, has revealed a new insight into the nature of iron mineralization that develops in association with the stalked bacteria Gallionella. The stalk fibers contain minute flaky iron precipitates. The size of the crystallites is 0.1–0.5 micron and some of them exhibit a hexagonal feature. EDAX analyses on individual crystallites give an atomic ratio between Fe and O very close to 0.67. The stoichiometric formula would thus be Fe2O3. Stoichiometry and crystallinity are in accordance with the mineral hematite. The mineralization seems to take place inside the fibers of the stalk. With time the Gallionella stalk is covered with iron oxihydroxides of different kinds that probably are controlled by inorganic processes more than by the organic chemistry of the stalk. From a thermodynamic point of view, oxygen as well as carbon dioxide are required to explain the formation of hematite inside the fibers. The precipitation takes probably place at a pH close to 5.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations117
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeomicrobiology JournalSame topicMine drainage and remediation techniquesFrench-language works237,207