VARIATION IN BURROW-WALL MICROMORPHOLOGIES OF SELECT INTERTIDAL INVERTEBRATES ALONG THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST COAST, USA: BEHAVIORAL AND DIAGENETIC IMPLICATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Burrow-wall micromorphologies produced by nine different intertidal invertebrates were characterized by scanning electron microscopy. Minimally disturbed burrows and host sediment associated with Heteromastus filiformis, Saccoglossus bromophenolosus, Corophium volutator, Clymenella sp., Phoronopsis viridis, Cirriformia luxuriosa, Arenicola marina, Nereis virens, and Upogebia pugettensis were collected from various locales along the western coast of Washington and California. Scanning electron micrographs show several unique sedimentary characteristics present in the burrow lining of each invertebrate. Three traits—grain orientation and grain-size distribution, the nature of the mucus lining, and the presence of wall sculpture—appear significant in describing the microscale burrow lining. In several burrow types, the burrow structure was distinguishable from the matrix by changes in the modal grain size and sorting of the burrow-wall sediment. Variations in the type of packing—cubic versus rhombohedral packing—between the burrow and sediment often accompanied grain-size variations. In addition to the alterations to grain distribution and orientation, most burrows surveyed showed mucus-stabilized walls. The style of the mucus secretion—globules, threads, or ribbons—and the resultant structure—smooth blankets or woven mats—used to stabilize the burrow wall can characterize burrow linings. Wall sculpture (microbioglyphs or microsurficial morphology) was observed rarely but when present was highly distinctive of Corophium volutator burrow linings. The observed variation in burrow-wall micromorphologies provides evidence of trace-maker behavior, burrow-preservation potential, and sediment diagenesis.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".