Sulfur record of rising and falling marine oxygen and sulfate levels during the Lomagundi event
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbonates from approximately 2.3-2.1 billion years ago show markedly positive δ(13)C values commonly reaching and sometimes exceeding +10‰. Traditional interpretation of these positive δ(13)C values favors greatly enhanced organic carbon burial on a global scale, although other researchers have invoked widespread methanogenesis within the sediments. To resolve between these competing models and, more generally, among the mechanisms behind Earth's most dramatic carbon isotope event, we obtained coupled stable isotope data for carbonate carbon and carbonate-associated sulfate (CAS). CAS from the Lomagundi interval shows a narrow range of δ(34)S values and concentrations much like those of Phanerozoic and modern marine carbonate rocks. The δ(34)S values are a close match to those of coeval sulfate evaporites and likely reflect seawater composition. These observations are inconsistent with the idea of diagenetic carbonate formation in the methanic zone. Toward the end of the carbon isotope excursion there is an increase in the δ(34)S values of CAS. We propose that these trends in C and S isotope values track the isotopic evolution of seawater sulfate and reflect an increase in pyrite burial and a crash in the marine sulfate reservoir during ocean deoxygenation in the waning stages of the positive carbon isotope excursion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".