Macroholes in stalagmites and the search for lost water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fluid microinclusions in stalagmites have provided samples of paleowaters present during the growth of the stalagmite, but only in microliter amounts. Genty et al. (2002) discovered much larger water‐filled macroinclusions in some stalagmites. Using computerized tomographic (CT) X‐ray‐scanning and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) we searched for such macroinclusions in 21 stalagmites from diverse localities in North and Central America and the Caribbean. We show that most stalagmites contained numerous mm to cm‐sized internal cavities (macroholes). These do not penetrate the outer surfaces which in most cases are deceptively unblemished. Some stalagmites have up to 10% average internal porosity. Two types of macroholes are distinguishable: axial holes formed during growth due to slower calcite accumulation at the axial drip site; off‐axis holesformed penecontemporaneously with growth in discrete layers; these cut previous growth laminae showing that they are post‐depositional. Using MRI on uncut, apparently sealed specimens, we find that very few of these cavities contain significant quantities of water although they were clearly formed while the stalagmite was being continuously bathed by drip water. Presumably, the water has escaped post‐depositionally, through micro fissures, extensive connected hole system, crystal boundaries or other defects.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".