Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Inside-out dolomite crystals are unusual because their cores are younger than their encasing cortices. In the Cayman Formation (middle Miocene) of Grand Cayman they developed diagenetically from zoned dolomite crystals that have cores formed of high-Ca calcian dolomite (HCD; > 55 mol % CaCO3) and outer cortical zones formed of low-Ca calcian dolomite (LCD; < 55 mol % CaCO3) or oscillatory-zoned LCD–HCD. The cores of these crystals, labeled as Type I, have a euhedral, rhombic outline with no embayments or angular reentrants and commonly contain calcite inclusions and/or micropores. Hollow dolomite crystals evolved from these crystals as preferential dissolution removed all or part of the HCD core. Later, calcite or dolomite cement was precipitated inside the hollow crystals. The former produced dolomite crystals with a calcitic core (i.e. dedolomite) whereas the latter produced inside-out dolomite crystals that have a dolomite core (LCD or HCD) encased by a dolomite cortex. The cores of the inside-out dolomite crystals, labeled as Type II, have an irregular outline characterized by angular reentrants and/or embayments, micropores that are usually larger than those in the Type I cores, but few calcite inclusions. The cortical zones have a euhedral rhombic motif irrespective of the type of core. Development of insideout dolomite crystals may significantly alter the average %Ca of the dolostones as HCD is lost to dissolution and LCD or HCD cement is precipitated in its place. The δ18O may also change, inasmuch as it is thought to covary with % Ca in some Tertiary dolostones. The genesis of inside-out dolomite crystal may offer an alternative explanation for the textures (e.g., clotted cathodoluminescence patterns) in some ancient dolomite crystals that have been attributed to replacement and/or recrystallization.
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 | 0.006 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".