Spiers Memorial Lecture : Lessons from biomineralization: comparing the growth strategies of mollusc shell prismatic and nacreous layers in Atrina rigida
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mollusc shell prismatic layer of Atrina rigida is composed of an assemblage of large and relatively perfect single calcite crystals, embedded in an organic matrix. A key to elucidating basic mechanisms of mineralization is understanding the structures of the matrix, the mineral and the relations between them. The matrix that envelopes each prism (the inter-prismatic matrix) is composed mainly of glycine-rich proteins, while the matrix inside each prism (intra-crystalline matrix) is composed of a network of chitin fibers. Prisms grow by deposition of mineral particles on the chitin fibers. The mineral particles are associated with highly acidic proteins from the Asprich family, which presumably stabilize an amorphous mineral precursor. We infer that once in contact with the already formed crystalline prism, the particles crystallize by epitaxial nucleation. In nacre, sheets of beta-chitin are interspaced by silk-like proteins in a hydrated gel-like state. beta-Chitin forms a scaffold onto which the acidic proteins are adsorbed. Some of these are organized into a crystal nucleation site, where nucleation of aragonite, supposedly from colloidal amorphous calcium carbonate particles, is induced. Comparing the mechanisms of growth of the nacreous and prismatic layers can help to understand the underlying strategies of formation of mineralized structures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".