Temporal Evolution of Tertiary Dolostones on Grand Cayman as Determined by 87Sr/86Sr
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract On the Cayman Islands, the Tertiary Bluff Group (Brac Formation, Cayman Formation, Pedro Castle Formation) is onlapped and overlain by the Pleistocene Ironshore Formation. On Grand Cayman, the Brac Formation and Cayman Formation are formed of finely crystalline dolostones whereas the Pedro Castle Formation is formed of finely crystalline dolostones, dolomitized limestones, and limestones. No dolomite has been found in the Ironshore Formation. Dolostones in the Bluff Group, which retained their original depositional textures and lack evidence of any recrystallization, are formed of small (typically 5-15 μm long) interlocking, euhedral dolomite crystals. Dolomite cement is present in the Brac Formation and Cayman Formation but is very rare in the Pedro Castle Formation. Most of the dolomite crystals are characterized by oscillatory zoning with alternating zones of low-Ca calcian dolomite and high-Ca calcian dolomite. Grand Cayman is ideal for assessing the temporal evolution of Tertiary dolostones because the dolostones are young, have not been recrystallized, and are geographically isolated by the deep oceanic waters around the island. Interpretation of 158 new 87Sr/86Sr ratios from the dolostones in the Bluff Group indicate that the succession underwent three time-transgressive phases of dolomitization during the Late Miocene, the Late Pliocene, and Pleistocene. Petrographically similar dolomite was produced during each phase of dolomitization that was mediated by the same type of fluid and the same general conditions. Dolomitization was part of a dynamic cycle of processes that followed major lowstands. Karst development during the lowstands preconditioned the limestones for dolomitization by increasing their porosity and permeability. Thus, vast quantities of the dolomitizing fluids could freely circulate through the strata during the subsequent transgression. Dolomitization ceased once a stable highstand had been attained.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".